Rand Paul Favors Allowing Racial Discrimination

Politics • Views: 4,576

The Page One blog in Kentucky points out that Rand Paul made his views on civil rights and discrimination perfectly clear in a letter to the editor of the Bowling Green Daily News in May 2002: Rand Paul Made Same Racial Comments in 2002.

From Rand Paul’s letter:

Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.

[…]

A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.

Jump to bottom

389 comments
1 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:37:31pm

Note to Paul supporters: Every exclamation point you use weakens your argument by 50%.

2 Lawrence Schmerel  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:39:41pm

The dude abides.

3 Kragar  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:40:24pm

If “No douchebags served here” signs ever catch on, the Paul’s and their supporters are fucked.

4 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:42:02pm

Reposted from last thread (fresh starts are good anyways):

“Protection of property rights” was the main thing the South said they were fighting for in the Civil War.

5 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:42:32pm

How Many Free Passes Does Rand Paul Get Before He’s a Bigot?

Dude’s clogging up the googles with all the attention he’s getting today.

6 Nick Morgan  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:42:40pm

Good find.

7 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:43:21pm

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

If “No douchebags served here” signs ever catch on, the Paul’s and their supporters are fucked.

It is apparently legal to discriminate against assholes, at least in employment. I hope it stays that way.

8 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:43:27pm

re: #5 darthstar

But he’s the salvation of the Republic!!!1!

9 Kragar  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:44:27pm

re: #8 windsagio

But he’s the salvation of the Republic!!!1!

Thats what Palpatine said too.

10 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:44:40pm

re: #8 windsagio

But he’s the salvation of the Republic!!!1!

I don’t think so…

11 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:44:46pm

The implications of this are just fucking assholishly staggering.

Does he think a private ambulance company could refuse to pick up a black patient? What if the only cardiac surgeon available in the ER refuses to treat black people?

Or women?

His position is so damn shallow, it’s so damn based on hewing to an ideology regardless of the functioning of the actual world, that I’m always surprised to see it outside of a sophomore’s poli-sci paper.

12 Kragar  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:45:00pm

Oh Christ, I just totally geeked out on that one. Even more so than usual.

13 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:45:28pm

re: #11 Obdicut

I’d bet real damn money that he things pharmacists should be able to deny women prescribed medicine on ‘moral grounds’ too >

14 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:45:57pm

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

was beautiful man, you’re not American without making Star Wars references ;)

15 Cato the Elder  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:46:02pm

re: #8 windsagio

But he’s the salvation of the Republic!!!1!

Your argument’s now at 6.25% strength. Or 3.215%, depending on whether we count the “1”.

16 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:46:30pm

Heh. There’s an ad to join the Mormon Church running at the top of the page for me. I love targeted advertising.

17 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:47:02pm

re: #15 Cato the Elder

Ones count double for this kind of calculation. so I’m actually at 1.6075%

(!!)

18 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:47:09pm

re: #15 Cato the Elder

Your argument’s now at 6.25% strength. Or 3.215%, depending on whether we count the “1”.

What about “eleventy-one”?

19 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:47:36pm

re: #16 Obdicut

heh I iddn’t know that churches ran ads like that, that’s kinda funny >

20 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:47:41pm

re: #15 Cato the Elder

Your argument’s now at 6.25% strength. Or 3.215%, depending on whether we count the “1”.

I think you could make a pretty good living as a tax prep guy :)

21 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:47:51pm

re: #15 Cato the Elder

Your argument’s now at 6.25% strength. Or 3.215%, depending on whether we count the “1”.

Uh…Cato…I hate to tell you this, but…

22 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:48:28pm

re: #11 Obdicut

The implications of this are just fucking assholishly staggering.

Does he think a private ambulance company could refuse to pick up a black patient? What if the only cardiac surgeon available in the ER refuses to treat black people?

Or women?

His position is so damn shallow, it’s so damn based on hewing to an ideology regardless of the functioning of the actual world, that I’m always surprised to see it outside of a sophomore’s poli-sci paper.

Yup. He’s defending people bosses who might fire employees for race mixing or interracial dating. He knows exactly what he’s supporting. It’s a well thought out position.

23 prairiefire  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:49:04pm

Jackpot, Charles! Thanks for tracking this down.

25 Four More Tears  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:49:07pm

re: #13 windsagio

I’d bet real damn money that he things pharmacists should be able to deny women prescribed medicine on ‘moral grounds’ too >

If I’m being honest I’m unsure about that one, too. More so because now you’re telling the pharmacist that he must sell a certain product.

26 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:49:18pm

re: #16 Obdicut

Heh. There’s an ad to join the Mormon Church running at the top of the page for me. I love targeted advertising.

When they start combining their ads with “BUY GOLD” I’ll know that Glenn Beck is their official spokesperson.( and I use person in the loosest possible sense there)

27 middy  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:49:54pm

re: #11 Obdicut

The implications of this are just fucking assholishly staggering.

Does he think a private ambulance company could refuse to pick up a black patient? What if the only cardiac surgeon available in the ER refuses to treat black people?

Or women?

His position is so damn shallow, it’s so damn based on hewing to an ideology regardless of the functioning of the actual world, that I’m always surprised to see it outside of a sophomore’s poli-sci paper.

That’s an excellent point considering the fact that Rand Paul is the kind of guy that’s in favor of privatizing everything, from schools to highways.

“Now Entering the Robert E. Lee Memorial Highway (Whites Only)”

28 What, me worry?  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:49:56pm

I don’t understand how both Paul Sr. and Paul Jr. can both be Pro-Life and libertarians. Rand’s opinion is identical to his fathers. Repeal Roe v. Wade, keep the feds out of abortion, give the rights to the states, prosecute doctors who perform abortions. Make abortion a crime.

But don’t make racism a crime. We can go back to bustin heads, hanging people in trees, burning churches and little girls, but let’s not kill any unborn babies.

29 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:50:34pm

Of course the wingnuts might be wondering why this happened the day after he wins the primary. All of this stuff has been known for a very long time. The lefties have noticed but didn’t want to make a big deal but now that he has the Republican nomination it’s open season. This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans.

30 prairiefire  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:51:11pm

re: #24 Ojoe

These Union boys died to free their black brothers & sisters. Rand Paul dishonors their memory.

Thanks for the reminder, Ojoe.

31 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:51:53pm

re: #16 Obdicut

Heh. There’s an ad to join the Mormon Church running at the top of the page for me. I love targeted advertising.

well, they did successfully target a godless dude;)

32 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:52:00pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

I already see the bumper stickers for the general:

“Don’t make KY look as bad as AZ! Vote anybody but Rand!”

33 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:52:00pm

re: #21 darthstar

Uh…Cato…I hate to tell you this, but…


Image: pancake-bunny.jpg

34 Four More Tears  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:52:20pm

re: #28 marjoriemoon

But don’t make racism a crime. We can go back to bustin heads, hanging people in trees, burning churches and little girls, but let’s not kill any unborn babies.

I think I’ve shit on this man enough to defend him just a little bit here and say that you’re going a step too far. :)

35 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:52:25pm

re: #33 Mad Al-Jaffee

That bunny died :(

36 Ojoe  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:52:45pm

re: #30 prairiefire

You are welcome.

History will disabuse you of many illusions …

37 middy  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:52:53pm

re: #35 windsagio

That bunny died :(

From a pancake?!

38 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:53:03pm

re: #35 windsagio

That bunny died :(

it was a really old bunny…

39 What, me worry?  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:53:19pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

Of course the wingnuts might be wondering why this happened the day after he wins the primary. All of this stuff has been known for a very long time. The lefties have noticed but didn’t want to make a big deal but now that he has the Republican nomination it’s open season. This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans.

It is. I’d be shocked and amazed if he actually won. I don’t think he has any chance. I mean, David Duke ran for senate too? And with the internet, this is going to go across the nation like wildfire.

Blacks vote. Hispanics vote and unfortunately there are a hellofa lot more minorities than haters.

40 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:53:38pm

re: #35 windsagio

That bunny died :(

That can be a scary thing for a guy to hear!

41 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:53:43pm

re: #37 middy

I’m trying to remember the old site. It was Japanese, but the guy had a ton of fans. He took pictures of things balanced on his rabbit’s head.

Natural causes, I think.

42 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:54:14pm

re: #35 windsagio

That bunny died :(

How do you know these things???

43 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:54:22pm

re: #40 Mad Al-Jaffee

That can be a scary thing for a guy to hear!

It’s OK, they haven’t used that test in many years…

44 SteveB4  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:54:59pm

My first reaction upon hearing his argument was that, if a restaurant in this day and age discriminated on the basis of race, it would go out of business within weeks, without the federal government lifting a finger. It would be shunned, boycotted, etc. Rightfully so.

However, this day and age is very different from the civil rights era. Local communities couldn’t be counted on to shun and/or boycott discriminatory businesses back then, because it was the mentality itself that needed changing…business practices were just a symptom. It took a big stick to make that change happen, and that stick took the form of the Civil Rights Act.

So while I followed Paul’s argument, I think he’s wrong, and Maddow was right to press him on it.

45 What, me worry?  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:54:59pm

re: #34 JasonA

I think I’ve shit on this man enough to defend him just a little bit here and say that you’re going a step too far. :)

I’m really not. I know I have tendencies to do that, but these are the things that happened before we had Civil Rights legislation. I said it previously, but why would anyone want to revisit that?

46 Four More Tears  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:55:22pm

re: #35 windsagio

That bunny died :(

Was it not supposed to? Was it Coney McCloud or something?

47 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:55:31pm

re: #42 Varek Raith

I’ve been on the internet a loooOooong time!

48 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:55:56pm

As Charles mentioned in the last string, this idea of repealing the public accommodation provision of the Civil Rights Act is fairly popular among self-declared libertarians. I hear it quite a bit from people I know. Publicly, they claim that no business in its right mind would exclude people on the basis of race in this day and age. I think they are dead wrong about that and they know it.

I have talked to quite a few old-timers here in Lubbock about what it was like in the segregation era. In contrast to the really deep south, segregation was not a legal requirement for private businesses here, though it was in public facilities like the courthouse. Businesses were free to exclude or admit whomever they liked. There was one movie theater that rigidly segregated blacks but admitted Hispanics as “honorary whites.” Another would not admit Hispanics at all, while a third was completely integrated. Some stores refused to do business with blacks while others had special hours for them. Nobody could remember a retail store that excluded Hispanics, probably because all of them did a land-office business with migrant workers during the cotton harvest. One department store was locally famous for admitting anyone who had money, at any time the door was open. Interestingly enough, the latter is still in business, Wal-Mart competition and all.

49 middy  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:55:57pm

re: #39 marjoriemoon

It is. I’d be shocked and amazed if he actually won. I don’t think he has any chance. I mean, David Duke ran for senate too? And with the internet, this is going to go across the nation like wildfire.

Blacks vote. Hispanics vote and unfortunately there are a hellofa lot more minorities than haters.

I think you mean fortunately?

Or “unfortunately for Rand Paul”?

At least I hope so.

50 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:56:28pm

re: #31 Aceofwhat?

well, they did successfully target a godless dude;)

Atheists like me who rejected the religion they were raised in don’t tend to get religion. Mostly religious types convert back and forth, or people who were raised with kinda nothing— like my parents— convert to a religion. I don’t think I’m the target, Ace.

Ace?

Oh no-god, they got him!

/

51 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:57:08pm

re: #37 middy

From a pancake?!

chicken & waffles is out, hossenfeffer & pancakes is in…

52 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:57:16pm

re: #44 SteveB4

My first reaction upon hearing his argument was that, if a restaurant in this day and age discriminated on the basis of race, it would go out of business within weeks, without the federal government lifting a finger. It would be shunned, boycotted, etc. Rightfully so.

This isn’t true. It’s nice to think, but not at all true. A large business, sure. A small business? Nope.

53 What, me worry?  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:57:52pm

re: #49 middy

I think you mean fortunately?

Or “unfortunately for Rand Paul”?

At least I hope so.

Unfortunately for Rand Paul, I meant, but either of your corrections will do!

54 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:58:03pm

re: #52 Obdicut

This isn’t true. It’s nice to think, but not at all true. A large business, sure. A small business? Nope.

Shit, a freaking high school got away with it…

55 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:58:18pm

re: #52 Obdicut

It opens up the opportunity for those certain people who give you MORE business so they don’t have to, you know…

56 Four More Tears  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:59:00pm

re: #55 windsagio

Your profile pic looks like it needs a hug.

57 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:59:29pm

OT: 24 hour rule…
Scientists create first synthetic self-replicating life

wired.com

58 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 1:59:46pm

re: #11 Obdicut

The implications of this are just fucking assholishly staggering.

Does he think a private ambulance company could refuse to pick up a black patient? What if the only cardiac surgeon available in the ER refuses to treat black people?

Or women?

His position is so damn shallow, it’s so damn based on hewing to an ideology regardless of the functioning of the actual world, that I’m always surprised to see it outside of a sophomore’s poli-sci paper.

According to Rand Paul and John Stossel they should be allowed to discriminate be racists if they are a private entity. In the case of the hypothetically racist private ambulance company then I would suggest they build their own private roads and publicly subsidized petroleum infrastructure to support their business. The restaurants would also have to get private firemen and police departments.

59 What, me worry?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:00:01pm

re: #49 middy

I think you mean fortunately?

Or “unfortunately for Rand Paul”?

At least I hope so.

A few things really upset me to the core and I feel like screaming. This is one of those times. I need to learn to take a breath more often.

61 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:00:22pm

re: #56 JasonA

She’s sad about Racism in America.

62 SteveB4  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:00:26pm

re: #54 Varek Raith

Are you talking about the prom thing? They didn’t exactly get away with it, it was all over the news.

63 Four More Tears  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:01:01pm

re: #57 Thanos

OT: 24 hour rule…
Scientists create first synthetic self-replicating life

[Link: www.wired.com…]

I thought only God was supposed to be able to do that?

64 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:01:20pm

re: #62 SteveB4

The Prom thing? They at least kinda got away with it, because I missed that entirely.

65 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:01:53pm

re: #50 Obdicut

well done-

66 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:02:07pm

re: #61 windsagio

She’s sad about Racism in America.

Hi Windy, I would love to play with you today, but you just got here, and I have to leave for work… maybe later, after 9:00 mountain… wait for me?

BB later all…

67 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:02:19pm

re: #57 Thanos

OT: 24 hour rule…
Scientists create first synthetic self-replicating life

[Link: www.wired.com…]

well not really… they used an already living cell and altered it no?

68 Happy4LA  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:02:19pm

Had James Taranto fallen off the rails in his support of Rand Paul? opinionjournal.com or tinyurl.com

Smith is not the only commentator to accuse Paul of being “evasive” or refusing to give a “straight answer.” This criticism is absurd. The politically wise answer would have been “yes”—a straight answer in form, but an evasive one in substance. Answering the way he did was a rookie mistake—or, to put it more charitably, a demonstration that Paul is not a professional politician.”

Taken at face value, the question itself—How would you have voted if you had been in the Senate as an infant?—is silly. It is a reasonable question only if it is understood more broadly, as an inquiry into Paul’s political philosophy. The question within the question is: How uncompromising are you in your adherence to small-government principles?

69 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:02:19pm

Boehner getting his pee-pee whacked over PA-12…oh joy!

The accounts also exposed anew long festering tensions or rivalries among House Minority Leader John Boehner and some of his deputies in the leadership. The two sources, both from the more conservative factions of the House GOP caucus, noted it was the Ohio Republican who tapped Sessions for the NRCC’s top post and said most of the NRCC’s top staff have ties to Boehner.

“In baseball, general managers can only fire so many managers before their own neck is on the line – and Boehner knows that,” was the take of one of the sources, the senior GOP staffer who was at the meeting.

From dKos…the CNN link has since been removed. Funny, that.

70 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:02:36pm

re: #66 Walter L. Newton

I always have time for you, lover!

71 Four More Tears  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:02:53pm

re: #63 JasonA

Speaking of which, I wonder what all the religious fundamentalists think of this.

72 Liberal Classic  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:02:55pm

re: #28 marjoriemoon

I don’t understand how both Paul Sr. and Paul Jr. can both be Pro-Life and libertarians. Rand’s opinion is identical to his fathers. Repeal Roe v. Wade, keep the feds out of abortion, give the rights to the states, prosecute doctors who perform abortions. Make abortion a crime.

But don’t make racism a crime. We can go back to bustin heads, hanging people in trees, burning churches and little girls, but let’s not kill any unborn babies.

To me, a libertarian was in the broadest sense accepts both socially liberal and fiscally conservative viewpoints. Paul junior and senior seem to me to me anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-porn, anti-drug, anti-science, anti-Israel and anti-anti-disciminatory. Or put another way pro-life, pro-family, pro-country, pro-morality, pro-sobriety, pro-creationist, pro-discrimination. If you take the liberal out of the libertarian, all you’re basically left with is a paleo-con who thinks he knows something about economics. That where it looks like the Republican party is headed.

73 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:03:02pm

re: #63 JasonA

I thought only God was supposed to be able to do that?

He only works with natural fibers.

75 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:03:45pm

Taken to a further extreme.

Using the Rand Paulian-Stossel-Libertarian logic the government should have never been involved in the emancipation of African slaves in the USA. Instead, it should have been left to the free market action of consumers such as refusing to purchase cotton from slave labor plantations.

76 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:03:48pm
77 What, me worry?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:03:54pm

re: #58 Gus 802

According to Rand Paul and John Stossel they should be allowed to discriminate be racists if they are a private entity. In the case of the hypothetically racist private ambulance company then I would suggest they build their own private roads and publicly subsidized petroleum infrastructure to support their business. The restaurants would also have to get private firemen and police departments.

Was Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand? For real, does anyone know? Because THAT is her philosophy and I think it’s abhorrent.

78 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:04:15pm

re: #70 windsagio

I always have time for you, lover!

You like old, used up bears? LOL… later…

79 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:04:26pm

re: #69 darthstar

Boehner getting his pee-pee whacked over PA-12…oh joy!


No pun intended?

80 SteveB4  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:04:28pm

re: #64 windsagio

There was a segregated prom in Georgia, in 2009 I think.

81 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:05:15pm

re: #80 SteveB4

Of course there was.


Idiots.

(and no I’m not disbelieving you, but that’s awful :p)

82 Stanghazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:05:26pm

re: #74 Varek Raith

:(
[Link: sokaisha.hp.infoseek.co.jp…]

Aw, so sad, but so touching at the same time.

83 SteveB4  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:06:00pm

re: #81 windsagio

Created quite a stink, as you can imagine.

84 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:06:06pm

re: #79 Mad Al-Jaffee

No pun intended?

Boehner is a walking pun…or is that pud.

85 What, me worry?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:06:08pm

re: #72 Liberal Classic

To me, a libertarian was in the broadest sense accepts both socially liberal and fiscally conservative viewpoints. Paul junior and senior seem to me to me anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-porn, anti-drug, anti-science, anti-Israel and anti-anti-disciminatory. Or put another way pro-life, pro-family, pro-country, pro-morality, pro-sobriety, pro-creationist, pro-discrimination. If you take the liberal out of the libertarian, all you’re basically left with is a paleo-con who thinks he knows something about economics. That where it looks like the Republican party is headed.

That was quite brilliant :)

86 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:06:28pm

re: #77 marjoriemoon

Was Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand? For real, does anyone know? Because THAT is her philosophy and I think it’s abhorrent.

I don’t know. Perhaps so but regardless it is fitting.

87 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:07:01pm

re: #83 SteveB4

As it should!

I dunno, I still think the best effect of obama winning was forcing all this crap out into the open (not sure why the racists reacted that way, but they sure seem to have).

Now we can apply pesticide and direct light to try to kill it properly.

88 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:07:13pm
89 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:07:20pm

More Randian logic.

If enough people die from tainted meat then people will stop buying meat from the butcher selling the tainted meat.

No need for the USDA.

90 wrenchwench  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:07:31pm

When I was a kid, my mom worked with the Orange County (CA) Fair Housing Council. If somebody thought a landlord was not renting to them because of their race, a call for volunteers went out. One time it was me and Mom who went to the apartment and were told we could rent it, five minutes after a black woman and her child were told it had already been rented.

The Paul position is that the landlord has (or had, and should have again) the right to do that, unless it is Public Housing, ie, there is taxpayer money involved in the transaction. That may be a principled libertarian point of view, but it leads to segregated schools and neighborhoods, and I’m against it.

91 Liberal Classic  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:07:36pm

re: #85 marjoriemoon

That was quite brilliant :)

Well, except for my crappy grammar. Thanks. :)

92 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:07:43pm

re: #11 Obdicut

The implications of this are just fucking assholishly staggering.

Does he think a private ambulance company could refuse to pick up a black patient? What if the only cardiac surgeon available in the ER refuses to treat black people?

Or women?

His position is so damn shallow, it’s so damn based on hewing to an ideology regardless of the functioning of the actual world, that I’m always surprised to see it outside of a sophomore’s poli-sci paper.

Ambulance companies and hospitals accept federal money so that isn’t really an issue.

The big question is does the constitution guarantee the right for people to be ignorant? Do we have freedom of association and property rights or not?

93 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:07:48pm

re: #77 marjoriemoon

Was Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand? For real, does anyone know? Because THAT is her philosophy and I think it’s abhorrent.

Randal Howard Paul.

94 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:08:02pm

Oh, and HI all!

95 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:08:07pm

re: #89 Gus 802

More Randian logic.

If enough people die from tainted meat then people will stop buying meat from the butcher selling the tainted meat.

No need for the USDA.

MAAADDD MAAAXXX~!

96 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:08:30pm

re: #68 Happy4LA

he doesn’t support Paul, he’s being pedantic about whether “evasive” is the correct moniker.

Taranto is saying that Paul is being honest, to a fault.

We do mean to a fault. In this matter, Paul seems to us to be overly ideological and insufficiently mindful of the contingencies of history. Although we are in accord with his general view that government involvement in private business should be kept to a minimum, in our view the Civil Rights Act’s restrictions on private discrimination were necessary in order to break down a culture of inequality that was only partly a matter of oppressive state laws.

97 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:08:35pm

re: #95 Varek Raith

Spin the wheel, Raggedy man!

98 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:08:40pm

re: #89 Gus 802

More Randian logic.

If enough people die from tainted meat then people will stop buying meat from the butcher selling the tainted meat.

No need for the USDA.

Isn’t “Randian logic” an oxymoron?

99 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:01pm

re: #89 Gus 802

More Randian logic.

If enough people die from tainted meat then people will stop buying meat from the butcher selling the tainted meat.

No need for the USDA.

perhaps a touch of penicillin?

100 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:03pm

re: #95 Varek Raith

MAAADDD MAAAXXX~!

If enough people die flying on a certain airline than consumers will stop flying on that airline.

Airline will go under. Problem solved.

No need for the FAA and the NTSB.

/

101 What, me worry?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:12pm

re: #93 darthstar

Randal Howard Paul.

Well then, it was just wishful thinking on my part!

102 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:17pm

re: #52 Obdicut

This isn’t true. It’s nice to think, but not at all true. A large business, sure. A small business? Nope.

I know small business owners who would be delighted to put up a “whites only” sign. I’m not just guessing about this either, I’ve heard it a number of times.

On a lighter note, I was a humble grease-monkey (“automotive lube technician”) before I became an insufferable scientific elitist . One day my boss and I were discussing how to generate free publicity for the lube business. He mentioned the old saw that there was no such thing as bad publicity. I said, “ok, if that’s the case just put up a ‘whites only’ sign.”
I said that would get him on the front page of the paper the next day.

He said, “Hell, that would get us on the front page of the New York Times.” He paused dramatically and added, “Maybe there’s such a thing as bad publicity after all.”

103 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:37pm

re: #98 darthstar

Isn’t “Randian logic” an oxymoron?

Randian illogic?

104 prairiefire  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:41pm

re: #92 RogueOne

Hello, Mr. Libertarian!

105 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:43pm

re: #100 Gus 802

If enough people die flying on a certain airline than consumers will stop flying on that airline.

Airline will go under. Problem solved.

No need for the FAA and the NTSB.

/

…or, be pissed enough to buy stingers….
/////

106 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:43pm

re: #72 Liberal Classic

It’s not merely headed there, it’s been there for decades.

107 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:54pm

re: #69 darthstar

Boehner getting his pee-pee whacked over PA-12…oh joy!

From dKos…the CNN link has since been removed. Funny, that.

speaking of Dkos, are they still defending Blumenthal, or did they finally get hooked on phonics with regard to that little waste of space;)

108 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:09:57pm

re: #90 wrenchwench

That may be a principled libertarian point of view, but it leads to segregated schools and neighborhoods, and I’m against it.

yesterday we were talking about how most ‘libertarians’ are probably just using that philosophy as a smokescreen for whatever issue is really important to them, but isn’t acceptable to say.

(Thus you get the “Libertarian on Race, but hell no, no abortions!” types)

109 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:10:14pm

re: #62 SteveB4

Are you talking about the prom thing? They didn’t exactly get away with it, it was all over the news.

re: #80 SteveB4

There was a segregated prom in Georgia, in 2009 I think.

This public school is in a county with about 40% black population:
cornerhsband.com

My kids’ former highschool was released from it’s desegregation order about a year ago. Another across the state was just ordered to de-re-segregate.

The times they are a’changin’ slowly in some places.

110 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:10:22pm

re: #104 prairiefire

Hello, Mr. Libertarian!

Howdy, I like the new avatar.

111 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:10:22pm
112 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:10:22pm

re: #100 Gus 802

If enough people die flying on a certain airline than consumers will stop flying on that airline.

Airline will go under. Problem solved.

No need for the FAA and the NTSB.

/

/if enough people die no need for anything.

113 recusancy  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:10:30pm

Anybody who wants to help defeat Paul in November can start by going here.

114 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:11:03pm

re: #108 windsagio

yesterday we were talking about how most ‘libertarians’ are probably just using that philosophy as a smokescreen for whatever issue is really important to them, but isn’t acceptable to say.

(Thus you get the “Libertarian on Race, but hell no, no abortions!” types)

Why I left the Libertarian Party. Too full of crazies. Sigh…

115 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:11:24pm

re: #95 Varek Raith

MAAADDD MAAAXXX~!

What’s a little fallout, eh? Have a nice day!

116 What, me worry?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:12:02pm

re: #91 Liberal Classic

Well, except for my crappy grammar. Thanks. :)

That actually explains a little to me. I have a really hard time understanding the libertarian philosophy. Mostly I think it’s inconsistent. They are proponents of less government in a huge way, but it’s always the government they don’t particularly care for and it seems quite arbitrary, based on personal preference rather than the good of the country.

117 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:12:02pm
118 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:12:07pm

re: #114 Varek Raith

The ‘ratty hoodie/dreads/still in college, or I should be’ libertarians are at least fun to party with :D

119 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:12:22pm

If I wanted to open a health club that only served red headed women how does that violate the civil rights of blondes and brunettes?

120 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:12:37pm

re: #101 marjoriemoon

Well then, it was just wishful thinking on my part!

Not entirely. The diminutive form of “Randal” would usually be “Randy.” It’s a safe bet “Rand” was chosen for its associations, possibly with the selection of the original name.

121 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:12:52pm

re: #118 windsagio

The ‘ratty hoodie/dreads/still in college, or I should be’ libertarians are at least fun to party with :D

I was just about to say they take themselves a little too seriously but they do throw the best parties.

122 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:13:04pm

re: #119 RogueOne

I know you’re just ‘asking questions’, but tread carefully friend :D

123 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:13:55pm

re: #119 RogueOne

If I wanted to open a health club that only served red headed women how does that violate the civil rights of blondes and brunettes?

Let’s start with blondes and brunettes are paying taxes for the road that leads to that club.

124 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:14:10pm

re: #92 RogueOne

Ambulance companies and hospitals accept federal money so that isn’t really an issue.

No, there are ambulance companies that are purely private, and likewise hospitals that are purely private. In addition, an individual doctor at a hospital may be a purely private individual working in a semi-public facility. Finally, if you don’t like the doctor example, there are plenty of other critical ones. What if every single grocery store in a hundred mile radius refuses to sell food to black people? And every gas station refuses to sell gas?

The big question is does the constitution guarantee the right for people to be ignorant? Do we have freedom of association and property rights or not?

Can you make that into a statement rather than a question? I can just say “Yes, we have freedom of association and property rights.” in response to that, but something tells me that’s not what you’re after.

125 prairiefire  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:14:15pm

re: #110 RogueOne

Thanks. Is yours you at work? The perspective is cool.

126 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:14:17pm

My libertarian and realist sides always clash.
Realist always wins in the end.
Great fun!
:)

127 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:14:21pm

re: #119 RogueOne

If I wanted to open a health club that only served red headed women how does that violate the civil rights of blondes and brunettes?

/Ginger’s Gym?

128 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:14:37pm

re: #120 Shiplord Kirel

Not entirely. The diminutive form of “Randal” would usually be “Randy.” It’s a safe bet “Rand” was chosen for its associations, possibly with the selection of the original name.

I worked with a Randal. He went by ‘Randal’

129 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:14:39pm

re: #119 RogueOne

If I wanted to open a health club that only served red headed women how does that violate the civil rights of blondes and brunettes?

i dunno. let me know when you do, so i can open a club next door welcoming all women!

130 SteveB4  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:15:24pm

re: #102 Shiplord Kirel

Big business or little business, blatant racism creates big headlines. Any podunk greasy spoon with a “whites only” sign, no matter how small, would find itself inundated with news cameras, etc.

131 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:15:26pm

re: #119 RogueOne

If I wanted to open a health club that only served red headed women how does that violate the civil rights of blondes and brunettes?

I’ve known a few red-heads in my time…can’t say I see anything wrong with that.

132 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:15:30pm

re: #129 Aceofwhat?

His business model would work better if there were people that would only ever associate with redheads no matter what >>

133 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:15:38pm

No Jedi need apply.
Stupid labor laws…
////

134 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:15:48pm

re: #122 windsagio

I know you’re just ‘asking questions’, but tread carefully friend :D

I’m being serious. I think business owners have the right to “refuse service to anyone for any reason”. IMO, as long as they aren’t a government organization or accept public money, people are allowed to be dumb, racist, elitist, and generally bigoted towards others for whatever reasons that pop up in their heads.

135 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:15:49pm

re: #132 windsagio

Or, “Gingers” if you wanna be all postmodern.

136 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:16:12pm

/does Wight Watchers have to accept skinny people?

137 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:16:16pm

re: #119 RogueOne

If I wanted to open a health club that only served red headed women how does that violate the civil rights of blondes and brunettes?

Mad Al would work as a towel boy, cheap.

138 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:16:29pm

re: #136 brookly red

They’ll gladly take their money!

139 Kragar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:16:43pm

re: #128 darthstar

I worked with a Randal. He went by ‘Randal’

Was he a berserker?

Youtube Video
140 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:16:53pm

re: #134 RogueOne

I’m being serious. I think business owners have the right to “refuse service to anyone for any reason”. IMO, as long as they aren’t a government organization or accept public money, people are allowed to be dumb, racist, elitist, and generally bigoted towards others for whatever reasons that pop up in their heads.

As long as your business is “on the grid” you’re accepting public money. If you want to run that business in the jungle or on the Moon then it’s fine.

141 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:16:58pm

re: #134 RogueOne

The thing is, you have to acknowledge that some groups are different than others… that’s why the Gov’t recognizes certain ‘protected classes’.

142 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:17:16pm

re: #25 JasonA

If I’m being honest I’m unsure about that one, too. More so because now you’re telling the pharmacist that he must sell a certain product.

If he wants to be a pharmacist, yes. If he wants to be a bookstore owner, he can stock anything he pleases.

143 Kragar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:17:25pm

re: #136 brookly red

/does Wight Watchers have to accept skinny people?

What does being skinny have to do with watching the risen dead?

144 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:17:29pm

re: #119 RogueOne

If I wanted to open a health club that only served red headed women how does that violate the civil rights of blondes and brunettes?

Natural redheads are predominately Celts or Pashto - that’s race based discrimination if you ask me. You serve Celts and Pashtuns but not others.

145 Ojoe  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:18:04pm

re: #63 JasonA

God created everything from nothing, the scientists created something from something; it’s not even close.

146 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:18:06pm

re: #143 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What does being skinny have to do with watching the risen dead?

Win.

147 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:18:20pm

Discriminatory social attitudes often distort market conditions; a savvy type can take advantage of it.

Pa, my belligerent and now-famous maternal grandfather, exploited the folly of segregation to purchase properties in the “Black” part of town and ended up owning quite a bit of real estate that others wouldn’t touch, and turned a handy profit dealing with people that other landlords were too “pure” to deal with.

Segregation as a matter of public policy is immoral; as a matter of private conduct, it’s repugnant.

148 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:18:29pm
149 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:18:54pm

re: #134 RogueOne

I’m being serious. I think business owners have the right to “refuse service to anyone for any reason”. IMO, as long as they aren’t a government organization or accept public money, people are allowed to be dumb, racist, elitist, and generally bigoted towards others for whatever reasons that pop up in their heads.

Usually, it refers to refusing service to someone because they’re being an asshole. When I was a bartender in college, I 86ed a number of customers. One guy, a regular (meaning every day from about 11am to 10 pm), once said to me, “I’m disappointed in your performance as a bartender.” I replied, “I’m disappointed in your performance as a customer, now get the fuck out.” The owner of the bar came in later, heard from the other regulars (this was a true dive bar) about what I said, laughed, and said, “Fine…he can come back in a month if he gets his shit together.”

150 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:19:19pm

re: #148 MandyManners

How’s he gonna’ get to the Moon?

Well, we’d have to count NASA out. Would have to be a private rocket fired from an island not getting any Federal funding.

Whew, this is getting difficult.

151 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:20:03pm

re: #150 Gus 802

Well, we’d have to count NASA out. Would have to be a private rocket fired from an island not getting any Federal funding.

Whew, this is getting difficult.

All of which I have…

152 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:20:35pm

re: #151 Varek Raith

All of which I have…

Except for the elevator. Just stairs.

//

153 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:20:36pm

re: #125 prairiefire


Yes, thank you. My brother took that with a cell phone.

154 cliffster  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:20:38pm

I’m back. Did you miss me?

155 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:20:40pm
156 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:20:54pm

re: #150 Gus 802

Russia sells trips, but that’s not a location yet.

157 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:21:12pm

re: #151 Varek Raith

All of which I have…

Volcano with retractable canopy? Check

Death-beam mosquito abatement system? Check.

158 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:21:14pm

re: #139 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Was he a berserker?


[Video]

I thought that was going to be a clip from Eric the Viking

Youtube Video
159 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:21:22pm
160 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:21:30pm

re: #134 RogueOne

I’m being serious. I think business owners have the right to “refuse service to anyone for any reason”. IMO, as long as they aren’t a government organization or accept public money, people are allowed to be dumb, racist, elitist, and generally bigoted towards others for whatever reasons that pop up in their heads.

Why do you believe this?

161 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:21:47pm
162 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:21:53pm

re: #155 MandyManners

But, that’s based on behavior.

Exactly. The only real reason to refuse service should be.

163 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:22:01pm

re: #156 windsagio

It never will be, so long as we aren’t using some kind of next-generation propulsion system. The fuel costs alone are absurdly prohibitive.

164 Decatur Deb  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:22:03pm

re: #154 cliffster

I’m back. Did you miss me?

Yeah—reloading.

165 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:22:04pm

re: #161 MandyManners

You got a rocket in your pocket?

VROOOMMMM!!!!

166 brookly red  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:22:19pm

re: #159 MandyManners

Isn’t there a private company sending people up in space?

yes but half the time they loose your luggage.

167 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:22:35pm

re: #159 MandyManners

Isn’t there a private company sending people up in space?

There supposed to be one coming up for sub-orbital trips. Nothing for the Moon of course.

168 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:22:43pm

So Rogue you agree with Rand, private business’ that serve the public should be able to exclude Blacks, Jews, or whoever they please. You want to accommodate racism when it’s frigging unconstitutional.

169 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:22:43pm
170 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:23:15pm
171 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:23:21pm

re: #134 RogueOne

I’m being serious. I think business owners have the right to “refuse service to anyone for any reason”. IMO, as long as they aren’t a government organization or accept public money, people are allowed to be dumb, racist, elitist, and generally bigoted towards others for whatever reasons that pop up in their heads.

i emphatically disagree. i’m no bleeding liberal, but i love tilting the system in the disfavor of those who have a difficult time putting their prejudices in the closet. how many extra little pockets of hate would still persist if discrimination, even within private business, was legal?

172 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:23:46pm

re: #140 Gus 802

Paying taxes and utilities isn’t accepting government money, it’s giving government money. Where in the constitution does it hint that the corner store has to serve everyone? Does an evangelical Christian have the right to be on the board of GLADD? I’m not sure where people get the idea that we all have to get along.

173 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:24:09pm

re: #77 marjoriemoon

Was Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand? For real, does anyone know? Because THAT is her philosophy and I think it’s abhorrent.

Seriously, his given name is Randal. I don’t know if there is any connection to Ayn Rand in the use of ‘Rand’ as a short form.

174 Kragar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:24:55pm

re: #158 darthstar

I thought that was going to be a clip from Eric the Viking

[Video]

Never go for the obvious, except when thats obvious.

175 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:25:10pm

Interesting that you plussed up 119 Mandy, if you replaced “red headed woman” with black, Jewish or Chinese, would you still plus it up?

176 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:25:22pm

re: #89 Gus 802

More Randian logic.

If enough people die from tainted meat then people will stop buying meat from the butcher selling the tainted meat.

No need for the USDA.

Of course, ultimately, that concept relies on very small local business. Big agribusiness cannot be held in check that way.

177 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:25:40pm
178 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:25:43pm

re: #172 RogueOne

Where in the constitution does it hint that the corner store has to serve everyone? Does an evangelical Christian have the right to be on the board of GLADD?

A) Why do you think those two situations are comparable?

B) An evangelical christian has the right to not be discriminated against for board membership on GLAAD due to their belonging to a religion. That doesn’t mean that their actual views and actions— like, if they thought gay people were evil— don’t have to be taken into account. Also, given that young evangelicals aren’t very anti-gay, that’ll probably happen.

179 cliffster  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:25:52pm

re: #164 Decatur Deb

Yeah—reloading.

got me here?

180 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:26:44pm
181 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:26:50pm

re: #175 Thanos

Interesting that you plussed up 119 Mandy, if you replaced “red headed woman” with black, Jewish or Chinese, would you still plus it up?

oops, is that your sense of humor on the ground? here ya go…

182 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:26:57pm

re: #172 RogueOne

Paying taxes and utilities isn’t accepting government money, it’s giving government money. Where in the constitution does it hint that the corner store has to serve everyone? Does an evangelical Christian have the right to be on the board of GLADD? I’m not sure where people get the idea that we all have to get along.

Sure it is. They’re benefiting from the collective infrastructure that is created from the tax pool. You’re not giving them money. You’re giving them money for services which are created from the sum of the revenue.

Religious organizations are a different story and not applicable to this argument.

What, are you going to tell me that the airlines are “private” and don’t benefit from the FAA and the NTSB?

183 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:27:06pm
184 allegro  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:27:11pm

re: #149 darthstar

I replied, “I’m disappointed in your performance as a customer, now get the fuck out.” The owner of the bar came in later, heard from the other regulars (this was a true dive bar) about what I said, laughed, and said, “Fine…he can come back in a month if he gets his shit together.”

Great response! I remember in my college days working waiting tables in a restaurant when a large, very drunk, group came in late at night. One guy was a complete asshole from the time I got to the table to take their order. When I came back with the food, I served everyone their plates and presented his food in a doggie bag. He went apoplectic. The rest of the group thought it was the funniest thing they’d ever seen and congratulated me for my creativity. The manager completely supported my actions and asked the guy to leave. I loved it.

185 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:27:14pm

re: #172 RogueOne

Paying taxes and utilities isn’t accepting government money, it’s giving government money. Where in the constitution does it hint that the corner store has to serve everyone? Does an evangelical Christian have the right to be on the board of GLADD? I’m not sure where people get the idea that we all have to get along.

Forget about gov’t money. It’s in the constitution. It’s the law of the land whether ya like it or not. You going to secede? Start a civil war? Try to get Rand to put a bill in to roll back civil rights? Argue that civil rights are civil wrongs like an idiot?

186 Fozzie Bear  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:27:17pm

re: #172 RogueOne

Paying taxes and utilities isn’t accepting government money, it’s giving government money. Where in the constitution does it hint that the corner store has to serve everyone? Does an evangelical Christian have the right to be on the board of GLADD? I’m not sure where people get the idea that we all have to get along.

As regards commerce, if you accept dollars for a given product or service, you have to accept ALL dollars. GLADD doesn’t sell anything, and you are free to make a private club.

But, if you open a store, it accepts American dollars from people who take American roads to get there. That means ALL American dollars.

We don’t all have to get along, but we do have to live under the same flag.

187 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:27:58pm

re: #183 MandyManners

No, later he said he was serious.

188 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:28:16pm

re: #178 Obdicut

Freedom of association, like freedom of religion, can be interpreted as both a positive freedom (to associate with, to practice a faith) and as a negative freedom (not to associate with, and not to practice any faith). It’s a difficult argument to get around, as there’s no more of a sound basis for compelling association by state action than there is for compelling religious practice by state action.

It’s ugly and awkward, but there it is.

189 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:28:25pm
190 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:28:27pm

re: #141 windsagio

The thing is, you have to acknowledge that some groups are different than others… that’s why the Gov’t recognizes certain ‘protected classes’.

If we’re talking about access to government services or any organization that accepts public money then “we the people” have the right to expect certain behavior. I don’t have a problem with that, it’s our money and we get to decide. OTOH, I think if the corner bar wants to serve only one sub-group of people that’s should be certainly within their rights. If the polish bar down the street (yes, there is one here) doesn’t want anyone of german heritage in their establishment I have a hard time seeing the justification the government has to force them to associate with people they would rather not be around.

191 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:28:42pm

re: #185 Thanos

Forget about gov’t money. It’s in the constitution. It’s the law of the land whether ya like it or not. You going to secede? Start a civil war? Try to get Rand to put a bill in to roll back civil rights? Argue that civil rights are civil wrongs like an idiot?

Switch to decaf.

192 darthstar  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:28:49pm

re: #184 allegro

Well played yourself.

193 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:29:41pm
194 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:29:45pm

re: #191 Guanxi88

No counter other than ad hom ? Tsk. Get an argument.

195 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:30:26pm

re: #144 Thanos

Natural redheads are predominately Celts or Pashto - that’s race based discrimination if you ask me. You serve Celts and Pashtuns but not others.

A fair number of Jews and Arabs are also redheads.

196 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:30:35pm

re: #178 Obdicut

A) Why do you think those two situations are comparable?

B) An evangelical christian has the right to not be discriminated against for board membership on GLAAD due to their belonging to a religion. That doesn’t mean that their actual views and actions— like, if they thought gay people were evil— don’t have to be taken into account. Also, given that young evangelicals aren’t very anti-gay, that’ll probably happen.

No, they don’t. The constitution guarantees you the right to associate with people you choose. Where does the right to belong to any group, join any club, or eat at every restaurant come from in the constitution?

197 mikeyes  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:30:38pm

Under Boy Scouts vs Dale Rand Paul is correct. Private organizations can determine who their members can be no matter how abhorrent the philosophies may be.

This is a First Amendment based decision that addressed a NJ accommodations law.

On the other hand, Rand Paul’s suggestion that a business, which is not strictly a private organization since it has potential contracts with the public who are not co-equal members of the organization, can do the same has not been upheld by the same court.

198 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:30:50pm

re: #194 Thanos

No counter other than ad hom ? Tsk. Get an argument.

188 is a pretty good one. The other was a humorous response to your over the top hysteria. Civil war? please.

199 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:30:56pm
200 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:31:00pm

re: #187 Thanos

No, later he said he was serious.

no, he later BECAME serious. very different. ding policing is tiresome, especially when you fuck it up.

201 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:31:22pm

re: #188 Guanxi88

I don’t even understand the argument. The bit in the constitution is quite clearly allowing people to assemble, talk to each other, etc. and not be prevented from doing so by the government. I don’t see how the inverse of that can be extricated at all. To me, that’s like saying the freedom of speech means that you have the right to have others around you be silent.

202 Stanghazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:31:55pm

re: #190 RogueOne

If we’re talking about access to government services or any organization that accepts public money then “we the people” have the right to expect certain behavior. I don’t have a problem with that, it’s our money and we get to decide. OTOH, I think if the corner bar wants to serve only one sub-group of people that’s should be certainly within their rights. If the polish bar down the street (yes, there is one here) doesn’t want anyone of german heritage in their establishment I have a hard time seeing the justification the government has to force them to associate with people they would rather not be around.

You are making the same argument as Rand Paul.

203 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:32:03pm

re: #190 RogueOne

If we’re talking about access to government services or any organization that accepts public money then “we the people” have the right to expect certain behavior. I don’t have a problem with that, it’s our money and we get to decide. OTOH, I think if the corner bar wants to serve only one sub-group of people that’s should be certainly within their rights. If the polish bar down the street (yes, there is one here) doesn’t want anyone of german heritage in their establishment I have a hard time seeing the justification the government has to force them to associate with people they would rather not be around.

Social peace and civil harmony are a compelling government interest. You allow the Polish bar to refuse German patron you increase the chances of social unrest, crime, and the requirements of increased law enforcement.

204 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:32:15pm
205 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:32:20pm

re: #201 Obdicut

I don’t even understand the argument. The bit in the constitution is quite clearly allowing people to assemble, talk to each other, etc. and not be prevented from doing so by the government. I don’t see how the inverse of that can be extricated at all. To me, that’s like saying the freedom of speech means that you have the right to have others around you be silent.

It’s the difference between permitting and compelling.

206 SteveB4  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:32:35pm

Some very interesting back and forth here. And not one accusation of racism so far…

207 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:32:52pm

re: #195 SanFranciscoZionist

A fair number of Jews and Arabs are also redheads.

This is correct, but if you trace the alleles back… they got them from the same place the Pashtun did. You don’t see too many Chinese with natural red hair, so lets say it discriminates against Chinese, or Inuit, or whatever. It is race based if it’s based on hair or skin colorization, or close enough that it just does not matter.

208 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:33:03pm

re: #206 SteveB4

Some very interesting back and forth here. And not one accusation of racism so far…

Racist!

209 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:33:04pm

re: #196 RogueOne

No, they don’t. The constitution guarantees you the right to associate with people you choose. Where does the right to belong to any group, join any club, or eat at every restaurant come from in the constitution?

There is no mention of freedom of association in the US constitution. What has been decided is that the government cannot stop you from associating from those who you want to. Can you explain what your constitutional argument is based on the inverse?

210 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:33:04pm
211 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:33:32pm

re: #202 Stanley Sea

You are making the same argument as Rand Paul.

Yes, only better. I would have eaten Maddow’s lunch. She wouldn’t have come out of her bedroom for a week.//

212 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:33:41pm

re: #210 MandyManners

What about private clubs?

Fine with me.

213 cliffster  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:33:42pm

re: #210 MandyManners

What about private clubs?

I was about to ask. Should Augusta be forced to allow women to be members?

214 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:34:34pm

re: #200 Aceofwhat?

no, he later BECAME serious. very different. ding policing is tiresome, especially when you fuck it up.

Bullshit, in 172 he’s still trying his insipid rationalization for Rand. It’s just not a supportable position.

215 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:34:36pm

re: #172 RogueOne

Paying taxes and utilities isn’t accepting government money, it’s giving government money. Where in the constitution does it hint that the corner store has to serve everyone? Does an evangelical Christian have the right to be on the board of GLADD? I’m not sure where people get the idea that we all have to get along.

The Civil Rights Act came about because, as a society, we wished to dismantle the injustices created by racial discrimination.

These injustices were systemic. The injustices that would arise if permitted would be systemic.

There is a difference between ‘we all have to get along’ and ‘everyone should have the right to walk into a restaurant and be served’.

It’s pretty goddamn simple.

216 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:35:04pm
217 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:35:30pm
218 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:37:02pm

re: #190 RogueOne

If we’re talking about access to government services or any organization that accepts public money then “we the people” have the right to expect certain behavior. I don’t have a problem with that, it’s our money and we get to decide. OTOH, I think if the corner bar wants to serve only one sub-group of people that’s should be certainly within their rights. If the polish bar down the street (yes, there is one here) doesn’t want anyone of german heritage in their establishment I have a hard time seeing the justification the government has to force them to associate with people they would rather not be around.

Wowwwww.

219 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:37:32pm

re: #209 Obdicut

Property rights trump almost everything in my book. The government can make an argument for health reasons that are legitimate but I don’t see how the government has the authority to tell you who you have to serve in your business. It’s your business, you’re paying taxes and abiding by the health and OSHA code, it’s your decision what customers you want not the feds.

220 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:37:58pm

re: #199 MandyManners

Didn’t King David have a red beard?

Tradition says that he was a ginger, yes.

221 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:38:41pm
222 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:39:07pm

People have a fundamental human right to be terribly wrong and pig-headed; it’s the way of nature, after all, and I for one doubt we could ever do anything more than attempt to manage the damage from it.

223 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:39:16pm

re: #216 MandyManners

The right to assemble is not the same as the right to associate?

No, it is not. We do have an inherent right to freedom of association in regards to the positive association, but I have seen nothing that implies a right to negative association in the US constitution or any supreme court case; in fact, I have seen the opposite, given that the CRA still stands.

The only way that negative association is constitutional is in excluding people from groups if they are diametrically opposed to the message that group is attempting to convey— which makes sense, even on an ontological level.

224 cliffster  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:39:31pm

re: #190 RogueOne

If you get down to the basics of what it is that the government is supposed to do, you could frame it as being, “prevent people from being oppressed”. This is why people like me generally favor the government staying small and staying out. However, it is possible for other entities to gain so much power that they can oppress on a large scale as well. That’s why we have antitrust laws. That’s why we have labor laws. You could say that yes, these laws are government meddling, and therefore is “oppressing”, but in some cases, the government has to “oppress” a little bit to keep people from being “oppressed” a lot.

I think that’s the case here. No, I’m not crazy about the idea of any level of government telling me who I have to allow in my bar, or store. But these laws just had to be passed, to get rid of the larger institutional oppression.

225 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:39:47pm

re: #220 SanFranciscoZionist

Tradition says that he was a ginger, yes.

My great-grandmother was a red-head, and this after nearly 40 years of having silver hair, and about 5 years of having blue hair.

Happened all at once, too.

226 gehazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:40:06pm

re: #219 RogueOne

Property rights trump almost everything in my book. The government can make an argument for health reasons that are legitimate but I don’t see how the government has the authority to tell you who you have to serve in your business. It’s your business, you’re paying taxes and abiding by the health and OSHA code, it’s your decision what customers you want not the feds.

Which pretty much matches what was said in the last thread about Paul’s philosophy: Property rights over human rights.

How utterly despicable.

227 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:40:14pm

re: #219 RogueOne

I know you don’t mean it this way, but don’t you find it a bit chilling to be using the exact argument used to justify the protection (and extension) of slavery?

228 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:40:22pm

re: #160 Obdicut

Why do you believe this?

You don’t believe people have the right to be as ignorant as they want to be? What about the 1st amendment?

229 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:40:46pm
230 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:40:48pm

re: #219 RogueOne

I’m asking you to actually make your argument, not state your opinion. I understand what you think. I’m asking you why you think it— especially given the real world history of what it was like when people were allowed to discriminate based on race.

So instead of stating your position, can you make an argument?

231 bratwurst  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:41:01pm

re: #215 SanFranciscoZionist

The Civil Rights Act came about because, as a society, we wished to dismantle the injustices created by racial discrimination.

These injustices were systemic. The injustices that would arise if permitted would be systemic.

There is a difference between ‘we all have to get along’ and ‘everyone should have the right to walk into a restaurant and be served’.

It’s pretty goddamn simple.


I would dumbfounded by the fact that there are people who clearly don’t get it…if there weren’t some who clearly doesn’t get it as the GOPs candidate for Senate from Kentucky.

232 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:41:20pm

re: #211 RogueOne

Yes, only better. I would have eaten Maddow’s lunch. She wouldn’t have come out of her bedroom for a week.//

Dream on dude.

(I think she’s cute too.)

233 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:41:28pm

re: #188 Guanxi88

Freedom of association, like freedom of religion, can be interpreted as both a positive freedom (to associate with, to practice a faith) and as a negative freedom (not to associate with, and not to practice any faith). It’s a difficult argument to get around, as there’s no more of a sound basis for compelling association by state action than there is for compelling religious practice by state action.

It’s ugly and awkward, but there it is.

Freedom of association does not apply to a Marketplace. Marketplaces and markets are public - you might have one that bills itself as exclusive (think Nieman Marcus) however THERE ARE EXACTLY ZERO non public marketplaces. If one person buys one product or service from another person it’s a public market.

Following so far?

In public markets you don’t have the right to discriminate - your “right of free association” ends where you try to exact commerce. You don’t have the right per the constitution to discriminate in the markets based on race, religion, and other factors. If ya don’t like it, you certainly are in the wrong country.

234 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:41:46pm

re: #228 RogueOne

You don’t believe people have the right to be as ignorant as they want to be? What about the 1st amendment?

See my #230. This has nothing to do with a right to be ignorant.

235 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:41:55pm

re: #219 RogueOne

Property rights trump almost everything in my book. The government can make an argument for health reasons that are legitimate but I don’t see how the government has the authority to tell you who you have to serve in your business. It’s your business, you’re paying taxes and abiding by the health and OSHA code, it’s your decision what customers you want not the feds.

Property rights like slave ownership?

236 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:42:04pm
237 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:42:41pm

re: #228 RogueOne

You don’t believe people have the right to be as ignorant as they want to be? What about the 1st amendment?

There are limits to those rights. No, I don’t think people have a right to be as ignorant as they want to be. If someone outside my window started screaming out racial epitaphs he has no right to do so and I would want him swiftly arrested. My right to a peaceful environment trumps his freedom.

238 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:42:55pm

re: #168 Thanos

So Rogue you agree with Rand, private business’ that serve the public should be able to exclude Blacks, Jews, or whoever they please. You want to accommodate racism when it’s frigging unconstitutional.

Where does it say in the constitution that people have to get along? Where does it say that a chinese owned business that only wants to serve chinese customers isn’t allowed. I keep getting asked where I think people have the right to be bigoted maybe you can tell me where the constitution even hints that we don’t have the right to discriminate amongst ourselves for whatever reasons we choose?

239 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:43:44pm

re: #229 MandyManners

I can’t imagine a court forcing the Klan to accept an African-American member.

Well, I can’t imagine one wanting to join.

Now, that would make one hell of a skit for the Chappelle Show, if it were still running.

240 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:43:46pm

re: #238 RogueOne

Where does it say in the constitution that people have to get along? Where does it say that a chinese owned business that only wants to serve chinese customers isn’t allowed. I keep getting asked where I think people have the right to be bigoted maybe you can tell me where the constitution even hints that we don’t have the right to discriminate amongst ourselves for whatever reasons we choose?

Give me a break. Where does it say in the Constitution that you can’t sell child porn?

241 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:44:36pm

My head hurts.

242 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:44:43pm

re: #238 RogueOne

Why do you keep phrasing this as “people have to get along”, when that is not, in the least bit, what the actual argument is about?

Can you please actually make an argument for your position, instead of just stating it over and over?

243 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:44:43pm

re: #230 Obdicut

I’m asking you to actually make your argument, not state your opinion. I understand what you think. I’m asking you why you think it— especially given the real world history of what it was like when people were allowed to discriminate based on race.

So instead of stating your position, can you make an argument?

I gave it to you mulitiple times and I’ve asked you the contrary. I keep asking a simple question. Where does the constitution hint that we all have to get along? Where does it suggest in the slightest that we all have to be open-minded non-bigots? Where do you think the government gets the right to tell a private property owner, or a club, who they have to serve or let in?

244 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:45:10pm

re: #237 Gus 802

There are limits to those rights. No, I don’t think people have a right to be as ignorant as they want to be. If someone outside my window started screaming out racial epitaphs he has no right to do so and I would want him swiftly arrested. My right to a peaceful environment trumps his freedom.

Epithets.

245 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:45:11pm

re: #228 RogueOne

You don’t believe people have the right to be as ignorant as they want to be? What about the 1st amendment?

Certainly, but when they enter the market to exact commerce that right ends. You have the right to freely associate with Stormfront, NSM or anyone else you damn well please, and to speak as stupidly as you would like. You don’t have the right to discriminate based on certain factors in public markets. Period, end o’ story, get the civil rights act repealed if you don’t like it.

246 bratwurst  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:45:29pm

re: #238 RogueOne

Where does it say in the constitution that people have to get along? Where does it say that a chinese owned business that only wants to serve chinese customers isn’t allowed. I keep getting asked where I think people have the right to be bigoted maybe you can tell me where the constitution even hints that we don’t have the right to discriminate amongst ourselves for whatever reasons we choose?

So if the majority of businesses in your town refused to serve you simply because of your race, religion or ethnicity, you would be ok with that?

247 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:45:32pm

re: #240 Gus 802

Give me a break. Where does it say in the Constitution that you can’t sell child porn?

That’s a different question now isn’t it. If you want to have an argument about censorship then I’m game.

248 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:45:37pm

re: #214 Thanos

Bullshit, in 172 he’s still trying his insipid rationalization for Rand. It’s just not a supportable position.

of course it’s not. i said as much. but you weren’t talking about 172. obsess over your up and down dings as much as you want, but don’t project on me for joking back in response or on someone else who updinged an obvious joke at the time.

here - an apology - i’m sorry that Mandy and I didn’t peer into the future in order to realize that he was going to defend this position before we engaged the joke as a joke and nothing more. please, oh Coppy Copperton, sheriff of dings, forgive us our trespasses.

good grief.

249 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:45:52pm

re: #244 SanFranciscoZionist

I dunno, Epitaphs is funnier!

250 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:46:19pm
251 windsagio  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:46:41pm

Hmm, guess its time to move on, watching a man self-destruct over the links between racism and libertarianism isn’t pleasant.

252 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:46:46pm

re: #244 SanFranciscoZionist

Epithets.

Thanks.

253 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:46:53pm
254 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:47:04pm

re: #218 SanFranciscoZionist

Wowww.

yeah. i like him a lot, so i’m trying to be gentle, but i’m black-and-white on this issue.

(how ‘bout that pun;)

255 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:47:07pm

re: #246 bratwurst

So if the majority of businesses in your town refused to serve you simply because of your race, religion or ethnicity, you would be ok with that?

I would have to be wouldn’t I? I don’t think there is much of a chance of that happening. Our society has become so PC oriented people would flip out if there was even the slightest hint of discrimination. Sort of like what’s happening with this whole argument.

256 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:47:08pm

re: #243 RogueOne

You have not made an argument, Rogue. Do you really think you have? You’ve just said, “Why not?” and “Property rights trump”. You have not actually made an argument.

You appear to be treating the constitution in an ur-originalist fashion for some reason, making the argument that the government can do nothing not specifically spelled out in the constitution. This argument is not only weak, it has been rejected by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. Is that really your only argument?

257 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:47:25pm
258 palomino  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:48:07pm

Rand Paul may be “his own man who does his own thinking,” as his father says. But on this issue father and son sound very much alike.

Even the terminology used by Rand in the Maddow and Louisville Courier interviews clearly echoes his father’s statements on the Civil Rights Act.

259 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:48:15pm

re: #238 RogueOne

Where does it say in the constitution that people have to get along? Where does it say that a chinese owned business that only wants to serve chinese customers isn’t allowed. I keep getting asked where I think people have the right to be bigoted maybe you can tell me where the constitution even hints that we don’t have the right to discriminate amongst ourselves for whatever reasons we choose?

Your racist sympathizer mask just fell off and cracked on the floor.

It says it in several amendments — are you really this dense or are you just pretending so you can defend your bigot pol Rand?

See the explanation above. There are no PRIVATE MARKETS, they are all public. The constitution says you can’t discriminate against Chinese. If you want to go to one of those fascist countries.

260 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:48:26pm

re: #256 Obdicut

argument that the government can do nothing not specifically spelled out in the constitution. This argument is not only weak, it has been rejected by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. Is that really your only argument?

It was certainly good enough for those who framed the document. Just sayin’

261 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:48:45pm

re: #255 RogueOne

Rogue, people are actually being very polite to you on this topic, even though, personally, I’ve dealt with this same tired position a hundred times before, mostly from Objectivists. Saying people are ‘flipping out’ by actually engaging with your deliberately provocative statements is lame as hell of you.

262 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:48:57pm
263 SteveB4  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:49:21pm

re: #259 Thanos

re: #238 RogueOne


Your racist sympathizer mask…

And we were doing so well…

264 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:49:28pm

re: #237 Gus 802

There are limits to those rights. No, I don’t think people have a right to be as ignorant as they want to be. If someone outside my window started screaming out racial epitaphs he has no right to do so and I would want him swiftly arrested. My right to a peaceful environment trumps his freedom.

You might want to be careful. The next thing we might decide is ignorant is the love of flight. If we’re allowed to take away the rights of the individual to believe what they want who’s to say what you believe is legal? Personally I think liberalism is based on ignorance, maybe we should outlaw liberals?

265 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:49:43pm

re: #260 Guanxi88

It was certainly good enough for those who framed the document. Just sayin’

What are you talking about? The founding fathers immediately began crafting legislation and adopting it that goes beyond the scope of what’s explicitly spelled out in constitution.

So what are you just saying?

266 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:50:25pm

re: #259 Thanos

Your racist sympathizer mask just fell off and cracked on the floor.

It says it in several amendments — are you really this dense or are you just pretending so you can defend your bigot pol Rand?

See the explanation above. There are no PRIVATE MARKETS, they are all public. The constitution says you can’t discriminate against Chinese. If you want to go to one of those fascist countries.

If you honestly believe there are no private markets, then you know precious little about the way business is done and has been done since time immemorial.

If you assert that any economic transaction between any two individuals is presumptively subject to state intervention, you are treading perilously close to the totalitarian brink.

If you honestly believe that Rogue One’s entire thesis is a mask for racism, you’re not bothering to engage your mind to consider an alternative position to the one you hold.

267 wrenchwench  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:50:43pm

Limbaugh’s daily email links to Human Events today.

268 cliffster  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:50:48pm

re: #259 Thanos

Your racist sympathizer mask just fell off and cracked on the floor.

It says it in several amendments — are you really this dense or are you just pretending so you can defend your bigot pol Rand?

See the explanation above. There are no PRIVATE MARKETS, they are all public. The constitution says you can’t discriminate against Chinese. If you want to go to one of those fascist countries.

How about if you quit throwing personal insults at everyone you disagree with?

269 [deleted]  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:51:26pm
270 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:51:29pm

re: #259 Thanos

Your racist sympathizer mask just fell off and cracked on the floor.

It says it in several amendments — are you really this dense or are you just pretending so you can defend your bigot pol Rand?

See the explanation above. There are no PRIVATE MARKETS, they are all public. The constitution says you can’t discriminate against Chinese. If you want to go to one of those fascist countries.

1. Your dick mask just fell off.
2. You’re an ignorant dick that doesn’t know me from adam.
3. Believing you have the right to tell others what they have to believe and how they have to act is fascist. Take a long look in the mirror.

271 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:51:44pm

re: #255 RogueOne

There’s more than the slightest hint. You are opining that people in market places should be allowed to discriminate against black jews, chinese, red heads, or whomever.

Opine away, we are going to keep telling you that you are either a bigot yourself, or a bigot sympathizer and damned stupid to boot.

272 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:51:51pm

re: #265 Obdicut

What are you talking about? The founding fathers immediately began crafting legislation and adopting it that goes beyond the scope of what’s explicitly spelled out in constitution.

So what are you just saying?

That the “ur-originalist” argument, to the effect that what wasn’t specifically spelled out in the constitution ought not be a matter of federal action is not the weak argument you seem to think it.

273 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:51:52pm

re: #243 RogueOne

I gave it to you mulitiple times and I’ve asked you the contrary. I keep asking a simple question. Where does the constitution hint that we all have to get along? Where does it suggest in the slightest that we all have to be open-minded non-bigots? Where do you think the government gets the right to tell a private property owner, or a club, who they have to serve or let in?

I believe that there are SCOTUS rulings which could explain it better for you.

274 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:52:30pm

re: #270 RogueOne

1. Your dick mask just fell off.
2. You’re an ignorant dick that doesn’t know me from adam.
3. Believing you have the right to tell others what they have to believe and how they have to act is fascist. Take a long look in the mirror.

You’re actually pulling the fascist card on this?

Seriously, are you a Paulian?

275 mikeyes  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:52:42pm

“The right to assemble is not the same as the right to associate?”

No, it is not. The Dale case was decided on Freedom of speech issues and not assembly. If you look at the amendment you will see the enumerated rights separated by semi-colons. Assembly is linked to petition. Association, on the other hand, is allowed under Dale so those of like mind can express themselves (privately) without the interference of persons who disagree. The issue of privacy or seclusion of association is key here.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

276 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:53:01pm

re: #266 Guanxi88

Tell me where you can legally not pay taxes on a transaction in the US Guanxi?

277 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:53:04pm

re: #270 RogueOne


3. Believing you have the right to tell others what they have to believe and how they have to act is fascist. Take a long look in the mirror.

No, that’s not actually fascist, or rather, no more fascist then it is any other authoritarian position.

You’ve presented a piss-poor excuse for an argument and avoided any consideration of how this would actually function in the real world. You’ve made a semi-originalist arugment while avoiding that there is, originally, no right to association in the constitution. I don’t think Thanos is the one who needs self-reflection on this topic.

278 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:54:11pm

re: #256 Obdicut

This argument is not only weak, it has been rejected by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. Is that really your only argument?

no, the SCOTUS has been more specific about what Congress can do in conjunction with an enumerated power. They have not rejected the concept of enumerated powers altogether.

(but i’m with you on all the other CRA stuff…)

279 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:54:17pm

re: #272 Guanxi88

That the “ur-originalist” argument, to the effect that what wasn’t specifically spelled out in the constitution ought not be a matter of federal action is not the weak argument you seem to think it.

It’s a quintessentially weak argument. I have no idea why you think otherwise. Can you name a prominent legal scholar who actually holds that view?

280 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:54:37pm

re: #276 Thanos

Tell me where you can legally not pay taxes on a transaction in the US Guanxi?


It’s hardly my fault if folk aren’t clever enough to dodge taxes

281 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:55:34pm

re: #261 Obdicut

Rogue, people are actually being very polite to you on this topic, even though, personally, I’ve dealt with this same tired position a hundred times before, mostly from Objectivists. Saying people are ‘flipping out’ by actually engaging with your deliberately provocative statements is lame as hell of you.

Please, I just got called a racist for believing people have the right to associate with who they choose without the government forcing them to behave with what society decides is proper decorum. I don’t see that belief as “provocative” in the slightest. You’ve never told me where you think the government gets the authority in the constitution to tell private business owners who they have to serve.

282 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:55:41pm

re: #278 Aceofwhat?

To me that’s just a semantic argument. The Louisiana Purchase alone blows that sort of argument out of the water.

283 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:56:26pm

re: #259 Thanos

Your racist sympathizer mask just fell off and cracked on the floor.

sorry, you spent all of your dick cred asking Mandy and I to explain why we engaged what was a joke at a time. so stop being a dick.

284 bratwurst  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:56:59pm

re: #273 Aceofwhat?

I believe that there are SCOTUS rulings which could explain it better for you.

People like Glenn Beck are now demonizing the use of case law as an inventions of “progressives” who took great pains in the first part of the 20th century to distance this country from its founders and the original intent. This mentality appears to be a part of the engine that it driving people like Rand Paul and others. I must say that I am sickened that anyone here or elsewhere would suggest that freedom of speech is the same as freedom to discriminate. SICKENED.

285 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:57:18pm

re: #271 Thanos

There’s more than the slightest hint. You are opining that people in market places should be allowed to discriminate against black jews, chinese, red heads, or whomever.

Opine away, we are going to keep telling you that you are either a bigot yourself, or a bigot sympathizer and damned stupid to boot.

You’re a fascist. Luckily, I believe you have the right to believe what you want and associate with other fascists. What I don’t believe is that the government has the authority to force me to associate with you.

286 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:57:44pm

re: #279 Obdicut

It’s a quintessentially weak argument. I have no idea why you think otherwise. Can you name a prominent legal scholar who actually holds that view?

Living? or ever?

Because few indeed are the living scholars who hold that view. Historically, however, the view has not been without its supporters.

287 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:58:35pm

re: #276 Thanos

Tell me where you can legally not pay taxes on a transaction in the US Guanxi?

Guy mows my lawn and I give him $20.00 for the effort. What taxes ought he and I to have paid?

288 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:58:41pm

Hmm. Squabble here and one upstairs.

Think I’ll take a break.

Before I leave for a bit I’ll just say this.

Rand Paul is W.R.O.N.G.

If you agree with Rand Paul you are W.R.O.N.G. and living the 18th Century.

289 cliffster  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:58:42pm

re: #282 Obdicut

To me that’s just a semantic argument. The Louisiana Purchase alone blows that sort of argument out of the water.

The Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. Even Jefferson thought so. Did it anyways. We got 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 acres of land for like a buck fifty. Who’s going to argue with that?

290 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:58:58pm

re: #276 Thanos

Tell me where you can legally not pay taxes on a transaction in the US Guanxi?

i don’t have to pay taxes if i give you $20 to clean my toilet.

291 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:59:03pm

re: #281 RogueOne

You got called a racist by one guy.

You’ve never told me where you think the government gets the authority in the constitution to tell private business owners who they have to serve.

I absolutely promise I will give you a detailed answer as soon as you explain, given the actual history of racial discrimination in this country, and given that every business benefits from the courts, the police, the roads, etc.— regardless of whether or not they pay their ‘share’ in taxes or not— why businesses should be free to discriminate against anyone.

Many other people in the thread have actually already given you an answer to that question, but you don’t seem very interested in views opposing yours on this topic.

292 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:59:17pm

re: #274 Gus 802

You’re actually pulling the fascist card on this?

Seriously, are you a Paulian?

Actually I’m not, funny huh? Believing people have the right to believe what they want doesn’t equate to believing they’re right.

293 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:59:42pm

re: #286 Guanxi88

Living? or ever?

Because few indeed are the living scholars who hold that view. Historically, however, the view has not been without its supporters.

Sure. Ever. Give me a scholar who believed that, at any point.

294 Gus  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:59:46pm

re: #288 Gus 802

Hmm. Squabble here and one upstairs.

Think I’ll take a break.

Before I leave for a bit I’ll just say this.

Rand Paul is W.R.O.N.G.

If you agree with Rand Paul you are W.R.O.N.G. and living the 18th Century.

Oops…

If you agree with Rand Paul you are W.R.O.N.G. and living in the 18th Century.

[Fade to black with banjo music.]

295 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:59:50pm

re: #280 Guanxi88

It’s hardly my fault if folk aren’t clever enough to dodge taxes

So your counter was bullshit.

296 gehazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 2:59:53pm

I don’t think it’s prudent to accuse RogueOne or Rand Paul or whoever of racism per se. Since it is true that they are “merely” advocating for the rights of others to be racist, it’s an easily avoidable charge.

Just stick with: your political philosophy enables racism by placing the abstract principal of personal gain above actual human lives and groups.

It’s not that Paul is racist (so far as we know), it’s that he basically doesn’t care about racism in the actual world.

297 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:00:00pm

re: #282 Obdicut

To me that’s just a semantic argument. The Louisiana Purchase alone blows that sort of argument out of the water.

heh. on such semantics our last 100 years’ jurisprudence is built…

298 Guanxi88  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:00:22pm

re: #295 Thanos

So your counter was bullshit.

And you’re still drinking espresso chasers with your righteous bile.

299 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:00:25pm

re: #289 cliffster

The Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. Even Jefferson thought so. Did it anyways. We got 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 acres of land for like a buck fifty. Who’s going to argue with that?

An ur-originalist.

300 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:00:43pm

re: #287 Guanxi88

Guy mows my lawn and I give him $20.00 for the effort. What taxes ought he and I to have paid?

holy crap. GMTA, and creepy on the $20 thing…

301 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:00:57pm

re: #297 Aceofwhat?

heh. on such semantics our last 100 years’ jurisprudence is built…

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Can you clarify?

302 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:02:19pm

re: #291 Obdicut

I’ve told you why multiple times. Individuals have the right to believe what they want. If they want to be bigots, so be it. If they want to be elitists, so be it. The government has no constitutional authority to tell us with whom we have to associate. If a company wants to be known as a racist organization, that’s their right as far as I’m concerned. We don’t have to get along, we don’t have to like everyone, and the government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to force us to believe what we choose not to believe.

303 cliffster  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:02:35pm

re: #299 Obdicut

An ur-originalist.

Actually, there was a lot of opposition to it. I don’t think it passed by much. Hard to say that it was the wrong thing to do, though, unless you try and make the case of setting a bad precedent.

304 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:03:07pm

re: #292 RogueOne

Actually I’m not, funny huh? Believing people have the right to believe what they want doesn’t equate to believing they’re right.

Quit moving the goalposts. You started with you thinking that people have the right to discriminate in commerce - your specific example was a health club. Now you are pretending that you were trying to say something else.

People in this country do absolutely have the right to be almost as stupid as they want, see how you are able to display your ignorance here in public forum, and others can all day long at stormfront? See how the KKK still exists, along with the National Socialist Movement? Your latest twist in the argument is bullshit because you are getting your butt kicked here.

305 SteveB4  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:03:42pm

re: #296 gehazi

I don’t think it’s prudent to accuse RogueOne or Rand Paul or whoever of racism per se.

It certainly doesn’t contribute to an interesting debate in any intelligent way.

306 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:04:24pm

re: #296 gehazi

I don’t think it’s prudent to accuse RogueOne or Rand Paul or whoever of racism per se. Since it is true that they are “merely” advocating for the rights of others to be racist, it’s an easily avoidable charge.

Just stick with: your political philosophy enables racism by placing the abstract principal of personal gain above actual human lives and groups.

It’s not that Paul is racist (so far as we know), it’s that he basically doesn’t care about racism in the actual world.

I’m not sure I’d go that far. Ron Paul had a newsletter for years that ran what I would consider racist articles and jokes. I don’t know anything about Rand other than he’s an orthodontist from KY which probably isn’t a very big money maker.

307 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:04:25pm

re: #301 Obdicut

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Can you clarify?

i meant that such tenuous distinctions, “semantics” in the course of normal debate, underpin a fair amount of case law. just being friendly and flippant…

308 palomino  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:04:59pm

re: #134 RogueOne

I’m being serious. I think business owners have the right to “refuse service to anyone for any reason”. IMO, as long as they aren’t a government organization or accept public money, people are allowed to be dumb, racist, elitist, and generally bigoted towards others for whatever reasons that pop up in their heads.

It may not seem like a big deal now because segregation has virtually disappeared in public venues.

But during Jim Crow there was a two-tiered society in the South. The only way to eradicate that system was for the federal govt. to step in and drag the South into the 20th century. That dual system in the South was so repugnant that it had to be decapitated; the only way to do that was to include public accommodations in the CRA.

Of course you can be racist and bigoted towards others. (I know a few people who are.) But not in public accomodations. As a society we’ve decided that’s not longer tolerable. Period. And if it upsets hardcore ideologue libertarians, so be it.

309 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:05:06pm

re: #302 RogueOne

No, it’s not a company’s right to be bigoted if they want to sell anything. See the civil rights act, see the 14th amendment.

310 Four More Tears  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:05:21pm

re: #307 Aceofwhat?

i meant that such tenuous distinctions, “semantics” in the course of normal debate, underpin a fair amount of case law. just being friendly and flippant…

Pretty sure he was, too. :P

311 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:05:44pm

re: #302 RogueOne

I’m beginning to think that you believe you’re actually making an argument.

Let me show you why you’re not:

Individuals have the right to believe what they want. If they want to be bigots, so be it. If they want to be elitists, so be it.

Sure. You’re talking about belief. No problem.

If they want to be elitists, so be it. The government has no constitutional authority to tell us with whom we have to associate.

Well, they definitely do. For example, if you are accusing someone of a crime, you are forced to associate with that person. Or a witness to a crime. Hell, you’re forced to associate with the whole court. So what you’ve said is definitely not true. The government has, constitutionally, at least one case where it can force you to associate.

If a company wants to be known as a racist organization, that’s their right as far as I’m concerned.

Do you believe it is still their right to benefit from public works while doing so? Works paid for by not just their taxes, but the taxes of those they discriminate against?

We don’t have to get along, we don’t have to like everyone, and the government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to force us to believe what we choose not to believe.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

You keep switching back and forth between belief and action. This is the fundamental flaw in what you’re saying, and may be why you think you’re presenting an argument when you’re not.

312 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:06:18pm

re: #310 JasonA

Pretty sure he was, too. :P

it’s all good…

313 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:06:55pm

re: #303 cliffster

Actually, there was a lot of opposition to it. I don’t think it passed by much. Hard to say that it was the wrong thing to do, though, unless you try and make the case of setting a bad precedent.

Most opposition to it was not on the grounds of unconstitutionality, though. There were a few people using that argument, but a close study shows that most of them didn’t even buy that, it was just a good ground of attack.

Anyway, that’s about as far back as you need to go to find an ur-originalist argument.

314 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:08:08pm

re: #304 Thanos

Quit moving the goalposts. You started with you thinking that people have the right to discriminate in commerce - your specific example was a health club. Now you are pretending that you were trying to say something else.

People in this country do absolutely have the right to be almost as stupid as they want, see how you are able to display your ignorance here in public forum, and others can all day long at stormfront? See how the KKK still exists, along with the National Socialist Movement? Your latest twist in the argument is bullshit because you are getting your butt kicked here.

I haven’t moved any goal posts. I think people are constitutionally protected to believe what they choose and associate with who they choose for whatever reasons they choose. If you choose to only associate with red heads I don’t see how the government has the authority to sayt you have to deal with blondes.

I understand it’s a simple concept which is probably why you’re having so much trouble wrapping your head around it.

315 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:08:47pm

Heh, the bigot frat poster boy is now the number one hit if you google “Civil rights act”….

google.com

316 gehazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:08:48pm

re: #306 RogueOne

I’m not sure I’d go that far. Ron Paul had a newsletter for years that ran what I would consider racist articles and jokes. I don’t know anything about Rand other than he’s an orthodontist from KY which probably isn’t a very big money maker.

Of course you wouldn’t go that far since you seem to share his views on this particular issue.

But if yall got your way, and the CRA were torn down, overt racism in this country would explode as all those resentment-filled white men realized they didn’t have to grit their teeth and tolerate minorities anymore. That’s what I call enabling racism.

317 mr. hammer  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:08:49pm

re: #302 RogueOne

Seems to me that if me and the missus wanna start a private club based on our own private discriminations… that’d be a private association, right? Would we not be within our rights ro do so?

318 palomino  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:08:49pm

re: #211 RogueOne

Yes, only better. I would have eaten Maddow’s lunch. She wouldn’t have come out of her bedroom for a week.//

If you’re that good then you should run for office. Very few people have been able to eat Dr. Maddow’s lunch.

319 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:09:34pm

re: #308 palomino

It may not seem like a big deal now because segregation has virtually disappeared in public venues.

But during Jim Crow there was a two-tiered society in the South. The only way to eradicate that system was for the federal govt. to step in and drag the South into the 20th century. That dual system in the South was so repugnant that it had to be decapitated; the only way to do that was to include public accommodations in the CRA.

Of course you can be racist and bigoted towards others. (I know a few people who are.) But not in public accomodations. As a society we’ve decided that’s not longer tolerable. Period. And if it upsets hardcore ideologue libertarians, so be it.

See, I don’t have a problem with you believing what you want. It boils down to do we believe people have the right to associate with whom they choose or not? I say they do.

320 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:09:41pm

re: #302 RogueOne

If a company wants to be known as a racist organization, that’s their right as far as I’m concerned. We don’t have to get along, we don’t have to like everyone, and the government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to force us to believe what we choose not to believe.

And i am glad that we removed that right. We had nearly 100 years after the civil war to get discrimination, especially racial and gender discrimination, out of our system.

We did a piss-poor job.

The last 40 years have seen far, far more progress than the first half of the 20th century. Discrimination may well have persisted in certain areas of the country without the legislation. We weren’t getting the job done as states and individuals, so the federal government did the right thing.

I am happy to have abdicated my right to discriminate in order to form a more perfect union. My right to bear arms? No. My right to discriminate? I yield it back to the great aether of our civilization…

321 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:11:08pm

re: #316 gehazi

Of course you wouldn’t go that far since you seem to share his views on this particular issue.

But if yall got your way, and the CRA were torn down, overt racism in this country would explode as all those resentment-filled white men realized they didn’t have to grit their teeth and tolerate minorities anymore. That’s what I call enabling racism.

I very much disagree. For one I don’t think racism is as big of an issue in this day and age. Secondly, there isn’t one publicly traded company that wants to be known as racist. Remember all the stories about Cracker Barrel? Companies tend to go out of their way to be evenhanded.

322 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:12:04pm

re: #314 RogueOne

No the gov’t does have the right since congress can enact laws, they enacted the civil rights law, and those laws apply Equally…

/ try re reading amendment 14….. “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

323 mr. hammer  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:13:01pm

re: #319 RogueOne

See, I don’t have a problem with you believing what you want. It boils down to do we believe people have the right to associate with whom they choose or not? I say they do.

Reminds me of all the fuss a few years ago over The Citadel, as a private institution, being forced to admit women…

324 garhighway  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:13:50pm

re: #314 RogueOne

I haven’t moved any goal posts. I think people are constitutionally protected to believe what they choose and associate with who they choose for whatever reasons they choose. If you choose to only associate with red heads I don’t see how the government has the authority to sayt you have to deal with blondes.

I understand it’s a simple concept which is probably why you’re having so much trouble wrapping your head around it.

So you are cool with the “Whites Only” lunch counter? You are OK with the days when blacks had to very precisely plan a car trip across the South to make sure they could make it to one of the few motels that would accommodate them, restaurants that would serve them and gas stations that would let them fill their tank?

That’s the America you like? And you think people have a Constitutional right to that?

325 steroid  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:14:03pm

At the risk of my good standing, I must say that I agree with Rand Paul and with RogueOne’s positions. I begin with an axiom that human thought, preference, and choice are independent variables, something unique among the dance of physics in the universe, and with another axiom that being unique as such deserves primacy in value. If you disagree with those axioms, nothing that follows will jibe. I know that many do disagree, holding humans as a mere sub-entity of the real world. Those who hold that disagreement as an axiom of their own need read no further, for we can come to no agreement.

Allowing that, however, means that it is wrong to discriminate against someone for a preference, even a prejudice, just as it is to discriminate against them for an unchosen point of reality such as race or gender. By the primacy axiom above, it is permissible to hold discrimination in the mind against someone who speaks or acts in a way you disagree with, but not to act against them, either alone or in concert of government.

In other words, it would be wrong to prevent someone from owning property and using it in whatever way they see fit because that person is black. It is also wrong to prevent someone from using property in whatever way they see fit because they are racist. Even if racism is counterproductive to a harmonious society, it is a human thought, and I consider that sacred.

Comment #89 mentions why we should eschew the USDA for the same reason. As a butcher I may wish to serve rotten meat instead of clean meat, because I wish to make people ill instead of fed and healthy. This is my preference. It is not within my purview to lie about the quality of the meat I offer, and I think even Mr. Paul would agree that combating fraud is a legitimate use of governmental authority.

I am not interested in the best outcome as much as I am interested in the best input. It is for this reason that I support Mr. Paul and his positions.

326 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:14:18pm

re: #317 mr. hammer

Seems to me that if me and the missus wanna start a private club based on our own private discriminations… that’d be a private association, right? Would we not be within our rights ro do so?

Yes you would be — you could join Stormfront tomorrow, or the KKK, those are really private clubs. When you try to discriminate against blacks, chinese, Jews, Muslims, or whomever in commerce however you cross the law.

327 webevintage  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:14:27pm

re: #90 wrenchwench

When I was a kid, my mom worked with the Orange County (CA) Fair Housing Council. If somebody thought a landlord was not renting to them because of their race, a call for volunteers went out. One time it was me and Mom who went to the apartment and were told we could rent it, five minutes after a black woman and her child were told it had already been rented.

The Paul position is that the landlord has (or had, and should have again) the right to do that, unless it is Public Housing, ie, there is taxpayer money involved in the transaction. That may be a principled libertarian point of view, but it leads to segregated schools and neighborhoods, and I’m against it.

How cool that you and your mom did were part of that program.

BTW, if I am correct, landlords can discriminate if they live in the building, like a 2 or 4 family flat.
Anyone?

328 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:15:28pm

Good grief.

329 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:15:39pm

re: #327 webevintage

Yep.

330 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:15:53pm

re: #325 steroid

What do you mean by ‘sacred’?

331 mr. hammer  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:15:57pm

re: #326 Thanos

Yes you would be — you could join Stormfront tomorrow, or the KKK, those are really private clubs. When you try to discriminate against blacks, chinese, Jews, Muslims, or whomever in commerce however you cross the law.

Ok, so is commerce the issue? Or is it private associations?

332 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:16:19pm

re: #311 Obdicut

You aren’t making an argument, you’re parsing words where it’s unneeded. You believe the government has the authority to force us to associate with people we choose not to but you can’t say where that authority is derived. That’s fine. Ace is the only one to admit the government only has that authority because we allowed it. His reasons are perfectly justified even though I disagree. I’ll almost never agree to giving the federal government more authority over the individual than the constitution mandates.

333 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:16:24pm

re: #325 steroid

In other words, it would be wrong to prevent someone from owning property and using it in whatever way they see fit because that person is black. It is also wrong to prevent someone from using property in whatever way they see fit because they are racist. Even if racism is counterproductive to a harmonious society, it is a human thought, and I consider that sacred.

Human thought isn’t close to being sacred. Do you have any idea how much terrible human thought exists or has existed?

334 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:16:47pm

re: #328 Varek Raith

indeed

335 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:17:19pm

re: #319 RogueOne

See, I don’t have a problem with you believing what you want. It boils down to do we believe people have the right to associate with whom they choose or not? I say they do.

Has nada to do with free association, one more time. You are free to associate with who the fuck you want, and you damned well know it.

You aren’t free to discriminate in sales, job promotions, etc. based on race, religion, and other factors. Once again you demonstrate obfuscation in trying to defend your bigot frat boy friend Rand Paul

336 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:17:44pm

re: #323 mr. hammer

Reminds me of all the fuss a few years ago over The Citadel, as a private institution, being forced to admit women…

Good memory, It was decided that they aren’t a “private” organization. They accepted federal funds so they have to play by our rules. I said earlier I don’t have a problem with that.

337 Stanghazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:18:10pm

re: #330 Obdicut

What do you mean by ‘sacred’?

Exactly.

338 palomino  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:19:42pm

re: #219 RogueOne

Property rights trump almost everything in my book. The government can make an argument for health reasons that are legitimate but I don’t see how the government has the authority to tell you who you have to serve in your business. It’s your business, you’re paying taxes and abiding by the health and OSHA code, it’s your decision what customers you want not the feds.

And this would be perfectly fine if there was no such thing as a larger social, or compelling government, interest.

The idea that you can “do whatever you want” in your place of business is of course, as you suggest, untrue. There are a whole host of laws business owners must follow. The CRA just added one more, and that addition neither cripples business owners nor precludes their expressions of racism in myriad other ways, including what products and services they make available.

339 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:20:17pm

re: #324 garhighway

So you are cool with the “Whites Only” lunch counter? You are OK with the days when blacks had to very precisely plan a car trip across the South to make sure they could make it to one of the few motels that would accommodate them, restaurants that would serve them and gas stations that would let them fill their tank?

That’s the America you like? And you think people have a Constitutional right to that?

It doesn’t matter what I’m “cool with”. This is just like what I continually say about free speech. People always say they’re for free speech until someone says something they don’t like. It doesn’t matter what I believe about anyone, or anything, other than the individual has the right to believe, say, and associate with whomever they choose.

340 mr. hammer  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:20:37pm

re: #336 RogueOne

Good memory, It was decided that they aren’t a “private” organization. They accepted federal funds so they have to play by our rules. I said earlier I don’t have a problem with that.

What if they had never accepted Federal funds? Say, like Hillsdale College (claims)? What does the law require then?

What about the Little Rascals and the “He Man Woman Haters Club”? Do Spanky and Alfalfa have to admit Darla? I say no.

341 Nimed  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:21:25pm

re: #332 RogueOne

You aren’t making an argument, you’re parsing words where it’s unneeded. You believe the government has the authority to force us to associate with people we choose not to but you can’t say where that authority is derived. That’s fine. Ace is the only one to admit the government only has that authority because we allowed it. His reasons are perfectly justified even though I disagree. I’ll almost never agree to giving the federal government more authority over the individual than the constitution mandates.

RogueONe, during the whole thread you have been conflating the 1st Amendment rights of speech and association with property rights. We already have the right to be bigots in the examples you provided (you should take a look at yesterday night’s thread). That’s not what’s being discussed here.

342 gehazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:21:38pm

re: #321 RogueOne

I very much disagree. For one I don’t think racism is as big of an issue in this day and age. Secondly, there isn’t one publicly traded company that wants to be known as racist. Remember all the stories about Cracker Barrel? Companies tend to go out of their way to be evenhanded.

Racism isn’t a big issue in this day and age?

Ye gods. What’s the point even in talking to someone so willfully ignorant of reality?

Publicly traded companies wouldn’t be the issue, anyway. And even if they were…couldn’t the government just buy a few shares of stock and then put a stop to it as a part-owner?

343 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:21:48pm

re: #332 RogueOne

You aren’t making an argument, you’re parsing words where it’s unneeded. You believe the government has the authority to force us to associate with people we choose not to but you can’t say where that authority is derived.

Sure I can. The general welfare clause and the 14th amendment both apply. Mostly the general welfare clause. It’s exactly what it was meant for.


That’s fine. Ace is the only one to admit the government only has that authority because we allowed it.

The government only has any authority because we allowed it.

His reasons are perfectly justified even though I disagree. I’ll almost never agree to giving the federal government more authority over the individual than the constitution mandates.

You should say ‘than my particular interpretation of the Constitution, which is absolutely at odds with how the constitution has been interpreted even from the very beginning of the United States.”

Here’s a good one:

What do you think the general welfare clause is actually for? What power does it actually give?

344 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:21:52pm

re: #338 palomino

And this would be perfectly fine if there was no such thing as a larger social, or compelling government, interest.

The idea that you can “do whatever you want” in your place of business is of course, as you suggest, untrue. There are a whole host of laws business owners must follow. The CRA just added one more, and that addition neither cripples business owners nor precludes their expressions of racism in myriad other ways, including what products and services they make available.

True, but the other laws like OSHA and health code rules can at least be justified as protecting workers and customers.

345 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:22:06pm

re: #331 mr. hammer

The civil rights act is right here, it will tell you the areas where you may not discriminate — hit the title sections to see the extent

en.wikipedia.org

346 Steroid  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:22:30pm

330: By sacred I mean prime in value as a philosophical concept.

333: By my lights “terrible” cannot be assigned to human thought because it is the standard of what constitutes terror or lack thereof. The thoughts you refer to only effect terror because of how reality treats them when put into play.

347 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:23:00pm

re: #346 Steroid

Why is it prime in value, though? Is that just a first principle of yours?

348 Varek Raith  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:23:10pm

re: #346 Steroid

Translation; word salad.

349 gehazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:23:37pm

re: #339 RogueOne

It doesn’t matter what I’m “cool with”. This is just like what I continually say about free speech. People always say they’re for free speech until someone says something they don’t like. It doesn’t matter what I believe about anyone, or anything, other than the individual has the right to believe, say, and associate with whomever they choose.

Nobody is threatening your ability to say what you like, believe what you like, or associate with whoever you like.

You just can’t operate a business and then exclude whole swathes of people from it.

350 palomino  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:24:05pm

re: #319 RogueOne

See, I don’t have a problem with you believing what you want. It boils down to do we believe people have the right to associate with whom they choose or not? I say they do.

The CRA doesn’t prevent anyone from associating with others who are likeminded. It didn’t ban the KKK or any other racist organization, or really even hamper their ability to associate.

Public accommodations are just a different matter. It’s settled law, not to be revisited.

351 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:25:00pm

re: #325 steroid

You live in cloud cuckoo libertarian limboland.

352 Nimed  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:25:38pm

re: #344 RogueOne

True, but the other laws like OSHA and health code rules can at least be justified as protecting workers and customers.

You don’t think anti-discrimination property laws can be much better justified than OSHA and health regulations?

353 Randall Gross  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:27:19pm

Time for me to eat and for others to bat the resident bigot booster about.

354 garhighway  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:27:47pm

re: #339 RogueOne

It doesn’t matter what I’m “cool with”. This is just like what I continually say about free speech. People always say they’re for free speech until someone says something they don’t like. It doesn’t matter what I believe about anyone, or anything, other than the individual has the right to believe, say, and associate with whomever they choose.

Do you understand the difference between speech and conduct?

355 Stanghazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:28:20pm

re: #348 Varek Raith

Translation; word salad.

Seriously. I tried.

356 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:33:21pm

re: #343 Obdicut

You should say ‘than my particular interpretation of the Constitution, which is absolutely at odds with how the constitution has been interpreted even from the very beginning of the United States.”

really, was slavery legal at that time?


Here’s a good one:

What do you think the general welfare clause is actually for? What power does it actually give?

Lets say I think the general welfare clause should include religion and that people who believe in a god are a drain on society and cause unnecessary conflict. If I can get 51% of the population to agree with me do we have the right to disband churches? Of course people have that whole freedom of religion thing but that only means they’re allowed to believe in god if they keep it to themselves.

Where does it end? What doesn’t the federal government have the right to decide is for the common good?

357 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:34:27pm

re: #350 palomino

The CRA doesn’t prevent anyone from associating with others who are likeminded. It didn’t ban the KKK or any other racist organization, or really even hamper their ability to associate.

Public accommodations are just a different matter. It’s settled law, not to be revisited.

That’s true. I’ve never said it should be overturned only that it was a bad decision from the start.

358 Stanghazi  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:34:27pm

Is it over?

I’ve been following Maddow’s tweets today. Sounds like she’s compiling the full story of the past statements of both Rand & Ron. We’ve read it before, but will be interesting to see all at once on the tv. I just wish that she or someone would drop the “Stormfront money bomb”

359 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:34:53pm

re: #354 garhighway

Do you understand the difference between speech and conduct?

Yes. Would that also include flag burning?

360 Nimed  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:35:11pm

re: #356 RogueOne

Lets say I think the general welfare clause should include religion and that people who believe in a god are a drain on society and cause unnecessary conflict. If I can get 51% of the population to agree with me do we have the right to disband churches? Of course people have that whole freedom of religion thing but that only means they’re allowed to believe in god if they keep it to themselves.

Where does it end? What doesn’t the federal government have the right to decide is for the common good?

*sigh*

Rand Paul’s discussion is not about the 1st Amendment.
Rand Paul’s discussion is not about the 1st Amendment.
Rand Paul’s discussion is not about the 1st Amendment.

361 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:36:34pm

re: #352 Nimed

You don’t think anti-discrimination property laws can be much better justified than OSHA and health regulations?

No I don’t because it’s a law based on peoples beliefs. It’s the same problem I have with hate crimes laws.

362 mr. hammer  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:36:34pm

So if the “He Man Woman Hater’s Club”, as a private institution is allowed to admit whomever they like - say, excluding Darla and Buckwheat. What happens 100 years hence when the institution is rich and large and and powerful, and the claim is made that membership confers certain advantages… say, certain business advantages… lucrative connections and such… So Buckwheat and Darla’s great grandchildren sue to gain admittance… What then? Do the federales have the right to bust the association and force them to admit everybody?

I say no. But this is the argument that was made to me regarding The Citadel a number of years ago.

363 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:36:36pm

re: #356 RogueOne

Lets say I think the general welfare clause should include religion and that people who believe in a god are a drain on society and cause unnecessary conflict. If I can get 51% of the population to agree with me do we have the right to disband churches? Of course people have that whole freedom of religion thing but that only means they’re allowed to believe in god if they keep it to themselves.

Where does it end? What doesn’t the federal government have the right to decide is for the common good?

Can you answer the question, Rogue?

You say you want what’s spelled out in the Constitution. General welfare is there.

What does it mean, to you? Or do you prefer to ignore that part of the Constitution?

364 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:37:24pm

re: #360 Nimed

You didn’t answer the question. What doesn’t the government have the right to decide is for the public good.

365 Steroid  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:37:42pm

347: It is prime in value, essentially, because I am arguing so and non-sapient reality is, by definition, standing mute.

351: Aw, shucks. Thank you.

To those saying, “Word salad,” I’m sorry I’m not expressing myself well. Please ask me any questions so I can help to make it clear.

366 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:39:26pm

re: #365 Steroid

It is prime in value, essentially, because I am arguing so and non-sapient reality is, by definition, standing mute.

That would be an example of word salad. I’ve read Kant and understood him and Dennet and understood him and can’t make head or tail out of that.

Are you just inverting Descartes?

367 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:39:36pm

re: #363 Obdicut

I answered your question. I don’t believe that forcing people to associate with others is covered by the “general welfare” bit. Answer mine, if it is then what isn’t touchable by the government? What about the 10th amendment?

368 RogueOne  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:41:06pm

I have to take off, thanks to most of you for the lively discussion. We obviously disagree about the power of the federal government. To those that called me a bigot and a racist, you can go screw yourselves.

369 palomino  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:41:40pm

re: #344 RogueOne

True, but the other laws like OSHA and health code rules can at least be justified as protecting workers and customers.

I appreciate the purity of your constitutional interpretation. All I can say is that the situation in the South had become so dangerous and intolerable that this particular limited abridgment to the freedom of racist business owners became necessary.

370 Four More Tears  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:42:37pm

re: #368 RogueOne

Bu what if we didn’t say it out loud?

371 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:44:22pm

re: #367 RogueOne

I answered your question. I don’t believe that forcing people to associate with others is covered by the “general welfare” bit. Answer mine, if it is then what isn’t touchable by the government? What about the 10th amendment?

You dodged the question completely, Rogue.

What power doe you feel the general welfare clause does give the government? What is it actually for? Answering what it is not for does not answer this question in the least.

You also are awkwardly using the term ‘forcing people to associate’ to apply to situations that don’t involve association. The OWNER of a business refusing to serve blacks will not usually have to associate with them at all, and that is mostly what we’re talking about here— property rights.

Or have you been arguing sideways this whole time, and are arguing against the right of an employee to not associate with black customers? If not, can you explain how an owner is forced to associate with anyone by letting them into his business?

But mainly, actually answer the general welfare clause thing. I know it’s a big challenge to those who hold your views— I have never seen anyone who was a ‘constitutional orginalist’ give any sort of good answer to this. But you should try.

372 cliffster  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:44:43pm

re: #368 RogueOne

I have to take off, thanks to most of you for the lively discussion. We obviously disagree about the power of the federal government. To those that called me a bigot and a racist, you can go screw yourselves.

later dude. I don’t agree with everything you were saying, but it certainly doesn’t make you bigoted. Don’t sweat the people who implied that it does - it just shows the quality (or lack thereof) of their critical thinking skills.

373 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:45:03pm

re: #368 RogueOne

I have to take off, thanks to most of you for the lively discussion. We obviously disagree about the power of the federal government. To those that called me a bigot and a racist, you can go screw yourselves.

That’s sad. You dodged almost as badly as Rand Paul did. I thought much better of you before this conversation, both in terms of you philosophy and your pragmatism.

374 garhighway  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:47:31pm

re: #359 RogueOne

Yes. Would that also include flag burning?

Do you think banning blacks from the lunch counter is speech?

375 Nimed  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:47:37pm

re: #361 RogueOne

No I don’t because it’s a law based on peoples beliefs. It’s the same problem I have with hate crimes laws.

Hm… but OSHA and health regulations can also be construed as being about people’s beliefs.

I don’t mean to condescending, but I don’t think you understand very well what you’re discussing. This is about a type of business regulation. Not about speech, or association, or conduct.

You can lawfully be as discriminatory as you like in your speech or associations.
You can lawfully be as discriminatory as you like in lending, giving or selling stuff in private transactions.
You can’t be lawfully be as discriminatory when you run a business.

This is a limitation of you property rights. Partial repost from yesterday:
Rachel did a superb job on highlighting the horrendous consequences of Paul’s political philosophy: if you’re a minority living in a racist/homophobic small town, you are de facto excluded from the vast majority of private services, all in the name of “freedom from government control”.

376 Steroid  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:57:34pm

366: OK, in simpler terms, I’m saying, “I want x” whether x be a productive society or a racist business or any whim I might have. The real world isn’t saying, “No, you can’t have that.” At worst, it’s just making it difficult. So my conclusion is that I have the right to get it. Only another human being can argue that I don’t have the right, and then only if I’m stopping him from getting what he wants.

Does that help?

377 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 3:57:59pm

re: #365 Steroid

347: It is prime in value, essentially, because I am arguing so and non-sapient reality is, by definition, standing mute.

reality does not depend on your observation in order to exist, with the exception of certain items that Schrodinger would be familiar with…

Human thought CAN be valuable. Most of it is crap, though. It takes a lot of work to create valuable thought.

378 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 4:00:07pm

re: #376 Steroid

No, that doesn’t help. First of all, the real world says ‘no’ to a lot of things people want. Some of them are impossible.

Second of all, there is no particular reason why a right in a society should be attendant on something being attainable in the ‘real world’.

379 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 4:13:26pm

re: #378 Obdicut

No, that doesn’t help. First of all, the real world says ‘no’ to a lot of things people want. Some of them are impossible.

and further, some of the things that people want run so contrary to the society we wish to build that we outlaw them.

so we debate where that line should be…like HCR. i don’t begrudge Congress the RIGHT to pass HCR, whether i agree with it or not.

our steriodal friend seems to believe that our elected representatives don’t have the RIGHT to prevent him from pursuing X…sorry. i believe there were some english folks who fled here because their society discriminated heavily against them…

380 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Thu, May 20, 2010 4:14:34pm

re: #379 Aceofwhat?

I’d also point out that human biology is part of the real world, and a lot of our society and laws are in existence because of human biology. We are not perfectly rational beings, nor are we tabula rasa. We’re meatbags with meatbag limitations.

381 Aceofwhat?  Thu, May 20, 2010 4:27:55pm

re: #380 Obdicut

I’d also point out that human biology is part of the real world, and a lot of our society and laws are in existence because of human biology. We are not perfectly rational beings, nor are we tabula rasa. We’re meatbags with meatbag limitations.

well, i am a meat popsicle. but other than that, yes…similar limitations…

382 aagcobb  Thu, May 20, 2010 5:49:31pm

re: #77 marjoriemoon

Was Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand? For real, does anyone know? Because THAT is her philosophy and I think it’s abhorrent.

I have read that his real name is Randall.

383 aagcobb  Thu, May 20, 2010 5:51:06pm

re: #24 Ojoe

These Union boys died to free their black brothers & sisters. Rand Paul dishonors their memory.

I’m pretty sure that Ron and Rand would prefer to honor the memory of the boys in gray, who died to preserve their property rights.

384 abolitionist  Thu, May 20, 2010 8:24:57pm

re: #219 RogueOne

Property rights trump almost everything in my book. The government can make an argument for health reasons that are legitimate but I don’t see how the government has the authority to tell you who you have to serve in your business. It’s your business, you’re paying taxes and abiding by the health and OSHA code, it’s your decision what customers you want not the feds.

The blindfolded lady with the scales (and a sword) is an iconic symbol of justice —before a judge, jury, or tribunal where the task at hand is to decide guilt or innocence of some person. But it is my opinion that the symbolism is much older than courts. That it is as old as commerce. And that older meaning is fair treatment in the marketplace. For everyone, not just for some of the public. It expresses MLK’s “dream” rather succinctly.

385 RogueOne  Fri, May 21, 2010 3:06:11am

re: #375 Nimed

Hm… but OSHA and health regulations can also be construed as being about people’s beliefs.

No, those are about the safety of customers and employees. Don’t be condescending and wrong in the same post.

386 RogueOne  Fri, May 21, 2010 3:10:20am

re: #374 garhighway

Do you think banning blacks from the lunch counter is speech?

Why are you hung up entirely on the racial issue? It amuses me to listen to a bunch of white people who spend their days with nothing but other white people discuss racial issues. I said people are entitled to be dumb and discriminate for whatever reasons they choose which includes race but it isn’t limited to the color of peoples skins.

387 RogueOne  Fri, May 21, 2010 3:17:36am

re: #373 Obdicut

That’s sad. You dodged almost as badly as Rand Paul did. I thought much better of you before this conversation, both in terms of you philosophy and your pragmatism.

No you didn’t. We disagree.

You’re a self-admitted liberal. I told you before this is where liberals and libertarians differ. Liberals are no better than theocratic social conservatives. You both want to control how the people live their private lives and you don’t need any justification for that belief other than “the common good”. That is such a wide open concept that leaves it open for the government to regulate every aspect of our lives. I happen to believe it’s best for the people to live their lives as they please with as little interference from the government as possible.

388 RogueOne  Fri, May 21, 2010 3:21:39am

re: #369 palomino

I appreciate the purity of your constitutional interpretation. All I can say is that the situation in the South had become so dangerous and intolerable that this particular limited abridgment to the freedom of racist business owners became necessary.

I appreciate your arguments. You and Ace are the only ones that were able to give a decent argument without letting your emotions get the best of you. I agree with the statement that the situation in the south needed fixing but that was a long time ago. In this day and age the only civil rights violations that minorities (at least blacks and latinos) need worry about come from those carrying a badge.

389 Bert's House of Beef and Obdicuts  Fri, May 21, 2010 6:13:32am

re: #387 RogueOne

No you didn’t. We disagree.

You’re a self-admitted liberal.

Wrong. I think ‘liberal’ is a pretty stupid label.

I told you before this is where liberals and libertarians differ.

There are plenty of liberal libertarians.

Liberals are no better than theocratic social conservatives.

That’s great.

You both want to control how the people live their private lives and you don’t need any justification for that belief other than “the common good”.

You base this on your own fervent belief in this, and nothing else.

That is such a wide open concept that leaves it open for the government to regulate every aspect of our lives. I happen to believe it’s best for the people to live their lives as they please with as little interference from the government as possible.

So do I. The key is ‘as possible’.

You have completely dodged the question, again:

What is the general welfare for? What power does it give the government?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 119 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 280 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1