Shots fired during Dallas Black Lives Matter protest...

MaverickM11 · Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:45 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
The second and easier of the two, is that people group together to form a charity organization that seeks to arm every willing, law-abiding Latino, Asian, Native American, and African American civilians as possible with open carry permits. Once 2 or 3 million minorities are walking the streets with guns proudly displayed, the status quo would lose their minds and demand gun restriction legislation.

Well this should go well...

New Black Panthers plan armed protest at Republican convention in Cleveland

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... republica/

seb146 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:18 am

Here is an interesting web site with some interesting statistics:

http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

Also, people who claim "all lives matter" bring up Chicago. NRA has no solution. Right wingers have no solution. All they come up with is "look at all the black on black and gun violence in Chicago!" Well, what do you propose? People who live in Chicago hate there is so much gun violence and nothing being done about. NRA and right wingers claim to have all the answers, so let's hear something besides "all lives matter" and "Chicago."

BMI727 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:39 am

tommy1808 wrote:
So is imprisonment of criminals.

You can only be imprisoned if you have violated the rights of others. The only valid reason to violate the rights of anyone is that not doing so would violate someone's rights.

tommy1808 wrote:
Bullying is already recognized as crime

Bullying is not a crime. Harassment and assault are, but simply not doing business with someone is not. Nobody has the right to never be offended.

tommy1808 wrote:
No, no one forces you to be a business owner.

Exercising one's right to do business cannot require signing away other rights. Again, it violates equal protection under the law.

tommy1808 wrote:
If they want to attach such a disclaimer to the US$, it would be a valid, since you are not forced to use US$.

Except that it's not their dollar, it's my dollar. The government can attach conditions to their dollars, which they do, but not dollars in private hands.

Dreadnought wrote:
Personally, I have become convinced that this is not the future the modern Democratic party wants.

They do have some interesting ideas like any black conservative is just not black enough. Or openly engaging in "soft bigotry of low expectations." It's not Republicans telling minorities that they are too poor and stupid to make it in life alone.

MaverickM11 wrote:
Welp, you're part of a club of 90+% white people that advocates for discrimination: racist.

You can't find one place where I've advocated for discrimination. I've advocated for freedom and I accept that people will use that to do bad things sometimes, including discriminate against others, but that's really none of my business.

MaverickM11 wrote:
You think your fantasy world would make people better off, when in fact it would only make you better off, while making all minorities substantially worse off: racist and idiotic.

You've repeated this ad nauseum but you still can't name one right that minorities would lose.

MaverickM11 wrote:
You have no idea why nary a single minority and barely a woman wants to join your team: idiotic.

Wouldn't it be racist to believe that the racial makeup of a group determines its legitimacy?

MaverickM11 wrote:
You oppose the Civil Rights Act, thinking the free market and god knows what other voodoo would drive positive change for minorities who have already been segregated for hundreds of years, albeit much muuuuuuuuch slower rate: racist and idiotic.

I oppose two of eleven parts of the Civil Rights Act that reach beyond the scope of governmental legitimacy and restrict the rights of private entities.

Aesma · Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:59 am

flyguy89 wrote:
You're right, that is a problem I and many other Americans take issue with and is starting to get national attention. Similarly, its always seemed contradictory to me that a country that espouses "egalite" has for more than 20 years reliably maintained unemployment rates of more than 10%.

In France we have a right to a job and a right to a place to live in, those are laws. Quite unenforceable obviously.

However unemployed people in France live better that many workers in other countries, so it's a trade-off. More than 10% is only recent actually, unless you use a way of counting that would also put the US much higher than advertised.

Aesma · Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:04 am

BMI727 wrote:
The fact that you would even say this is to capitulate to idiocy and surrender rights to laziness. Divorcing life from philosophy is to concede the highest of American principles and resign ourselves to a world where the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are merely words.

That's life. You or I may not understand it but Putin and Erdogan are very popular despite putting opponents and journalists in jail or worse.

I'm not saying there are no natural rights, I'm saying that the US society is not really following the principles it preaches.

I will also add that worshipping old papers is something I don't understand. A constitution should fit the times and be changed when needed, without making a big deal out of it.

PacificBeach88 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:49 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
Well this should go well...

New Black Panthers plan armed protest at Republican convention in Cleveland

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... republica/

Given the NRA and Republican party has consistently talked about needing "good guys with guns" to kill "bad guys with guns", they both should be applauding their entrance and protection, no? LOL

It still makes me laugh when the pearl clutching at Fox News rehashes the power of the "New Black Panther organization" when they show the same 2 guys with guns, outside that 1 and only voting station, from back in 2008.

Dreadnought · Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:00 am

PacificBeach88 wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Well this should go well...

New Black Panthers plan armed protest at Republican convention in Cleveland

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... republica/

Given the NRA and Republican party has consistently talked about needing "good guys with guns" to kill "bad guys with guns", they both should be applauding their entrance and protection, no? LOL

I have no problem with it in principle,except for the fact that these guys are an openly racist organization. I hope they have the discipline to keep their people under control.

Next, should an invitation be issued for the KKK to do an armed protest at the DNC?

flyguy89 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:09 am

tommy1808 wrote:
would be up in arms in the hypothetical scenario I presented, and that you presumably would not. No need to go ad hominem.

Questions are not an attack, they are just questions. Even if you repeat them because someone refuses to clarify or back a statement up. Last time i checked human rights violations and dictatorships where very real, so very real actions have to follow, or it is just empty words.

What needs to be clarified or backed up? If slavery were again legalized in the western world, I would be up in arms.

tommy1808 wrote:
No one ever suggested our current recognition of the natural rights of man is total and complete.

So, there is no reason to think that the right to have a firearm has any bearing onto "real" natural law,

It's an arguable point, which is why it's debated.

tommy1808 wrote:
since our understanding of those laws is neither total nor complete, and therefore open to human error. Hence, everything we perceive as "natural law" can be in error, there follows human rights are man made. q.e.d.

No, it does not follow that because we may not know the totality of our natural rights that they're man-made. Our knowledge of the oceans is not complete, but that doesn't make them man-made or unnatural. The validity of natural rights are ultimately born out by nature and reality itself. We could decide today that all humans have a natural right to hats and ensure every human being has a hat. But a few years from now, I think we'd find that not to be valid since hats are not a necessary condition to allow a human to flourish, prosper, or pursue happiness.

tommy1808 wrote:
You cannot say the same for another species unless you can read their minds or understand them as their own species understands and perceives each other and the world around them.

I can not say the same about them, true. However, if those laws are in deed natural, logic would dictate to assume that any and every right we assign to ourselves if also valid for them, unless we can prove it doesn´t. Otherwise you just open the door to classifying beings as non-human, not-fully human or sub-human to deny them those rights.

Why would you assume that rights natural to and among humans are valid for a particular animal. Birds have wings, wings are a natural attribute for and among birds, but just because a lion doesn't have wings doesn't make the reality that wings are natural and inherent among birds not fact.

tommy1808 wrote:
First of all, gravity is a concept.

We have a concept about gravity, but gravity isn´t a concept.

Sure it is. By definition everything we know or believe to know about gravity is a concept, but the point is that whether or not something is a concept has no bearing on whether or not its subject is natural.

tommy1808 wrote:
A dictator can abolish all individual rights and enslave his entire population, but that can't abolish the reality that they have an inherent right to liberty.

A farmer can abolish all individual rights and enslave his entire cattle population, but that can't abolish the reality that they have an inherent right to liberty.

If cattle do indeed have an inherent right to liberty, sure. But again, how would you know?

tommy1808 wrote:
Perhaps otters do as well, but unless we can read their minds, we can't know what or if that's the case.

And since you would not just not violate those natural rights, even pick up arms to defend them, logic dictates to apply those rights to every living thing unless you know it doesn´t have natural rights and their nature. How can you be fighting for natural rights, but villi nilli not care if other beings have the same rights. We´ve come a full circle: you´d better be a vegan then. Well, or your philosophy is inconsistent.

Why would logic dictate that when I only care about the natural rights of humans? Indeed how would you even suggest we modify our behaviors if we can't know what those rights are, if they even have them? Would it be logical for the entire world to spend trillions on some space defense system to protect against an alien invasion from some aggressive alien species we don't know exists or what their capabilities would be?

tommy1808 wrote:
That could very well be, but again, we can't know what their natural rights are. That we don't know what they are, or that we may be impinging on those rights wouldn't change that they have them however.

The above still applies. Assuming that something has no rights at all until we realize that they have rights is exactly what got us into this mess.

It does not, because now you're talking about a very specific assumption, an assumption on if/what are natural rights for animals, but you're assuming that I care as deeply for animals as I do for fellow human beings. I care far less if I happen to be violating the natural rights of an animal than I do for the violation of the natural rights of a human. I'm not assuming animals have no natural rights, I'm making the decision not to care that I might be violating them, whatever they may be. Now, you may come back and say that then morally makes me no better than some dictator...but morality is a different matter, and I think most would agree that your morality/behaviors and attitudes towards your fellow human carries much greater weight and importance.

tommy1808 wrote:
Whether a particular animal does or does not have a natural right to life cannot be known by us. What we can and do know is that humans have an inherent right to life.

See above. As long as i deny knowledge of other beings rights, i am free to violate them.

Key word being "violate," an infringement, a transgression, and that wouldn't legitimize it. And that still doesn't make those rights not exist.

tommy1808 wrote:
Conceding that all rights are man-made concedes that they can be legitimately destroyed or abolished.

Nah, hard to turn back progress. Even bogus "natural rights" like the 2nd amendment don´t go away.

It was easy enough for the Nazis and Soviet Union.

tommy1808 wrote:
While they were forcibly enslaved, do you think during that period African slaves had no right to liberty? They always had that right, and it was the realization that, as fellow humans, they did have that right which made and makes slavery in the modern age untenable.

Has it? How is a dictatorship providing cheap labor to investors, locking people up, sustaining their lives just enough to keep them from open revolt, prosecute and punish those that want to change the situation, and, if necessary, using force to prevent them from leaving different from slavery in any meaningful way? We only abolished private slave ownership, slavery is still alive and kicking.

I said untenable, not non-existent. And you never answered the question, during the period when Africans were slaves, do you think they had no right to liberty?

tommy1808 wrote:
Really. For starters, the human brain has about tripled in size over the last few million years.

And that means what exactly? An elephants brain is four times as big as the average humans, a Mausmaki has 50% bigger brains in relation to body size we have.

But hat wasn´t the question now, was it? The question was "when was the first human baby born to non-human parents". Because unless you can pin down the first human, there is no real basis to distinguish between human and non-human.

The black stuff in this pictures is a fluid filled void. The french guy carrying this head around has just about 10% of the average brain size, is 53 years old and is NOT mentally handicapped. So much for brain size matters.

That's pretty cool, but doesn't change the fact that the human mind has changed and evolved over the past few million years. You're the one who seemingly questioned that it had.

tommy1808 wrote:
Though a person may be brain damaged or deficient in some way, we have the reasoning capabilities to know that person is a human, and that as a human they have certain natural rights.

We also have the reasoning capacity to see that there is no inherently logical reason to deny rights to a cow that we assign to a human.

There's also no inherently logical reason to give them those rights either.

tommy1808 wrote:
Who does?

That depends on what metrics you use, as i pointed out before. But whatever metrics you do chose, there is no way to know if you are using the "right" metrics, if there is one. You just chose metrics that have humans come out on top, but that is only because you chose the metrics that give you that result.
If you go by number, biomass, habitats conquered, survival time of the species and many others, humans only show up far, far down the list. And even by standards you may chose to crown mankind, that situation has arisen just recently and just a blink of e geological eye ago mankind was almost extinct.

One could even argue that our domestic animals rule the world, after all their extended phenotypic effects are very efficient in getting us to feed, protect, house and nurture them.

best regards
Thomas

Not denying mankind's mortality or vulnerability, but then you can't really say it's incorrect to conclude that humans currently dominate the earth if there is no way to know the "right" metrics. Either way, I don't think you can deny that there isn't, at this time, another animal or species on this planet that has the ability to influence and impact the planet as humans do. Birds are important in many respects, but they don't have the ability to nuke the entire planet or terraform islands in the sea.

PacificBeach88 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:15 am

Dreadnought wrote:

I have no problem with it in principle,except for the fact that these guys are an openly racist organization. I hope they have the discipline to keep their people under control.

Next, should an invitation be issued for the KKK to do an armed protest at the DNC?

Oh well, that's on someone else. After all, the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment says nothing about racists does it? I guess racists have "natural rights" as others have argued in this thread every bit as much as Joe 6-Pack. If you're going to have open carry laws, they need to be assigned individually under the law, without regard to race, age, creed, male/female, etc...

seb146 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:59 am

Dreadnought wrote:
I have no problem with it in principle,except for the fact that these guys are an openly racist organization. I hope they have the discipline to keep their people under control.

Next, should an invitation be issued for the KKK to do an armed protest at the DNC?

*facepalm*

Really? New Black Panthers a racist organization? How many white men have been found hanging from trees because of NBP? How many neighborhoods have been torched by NBP? How many beatings and rapes by NBP?

And, yet, now defense of suspending guns and open carry at RNC.

Dreadnought · Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:10 am

Dreadnought wrote:
D L X wrote:
How can it be a non sequitur when it directly addresses your argument that the Black community isn't doing anything about its "cancer?"

You said nothing about what they were doing about the problem. All I hear is "racism". Please tell me what they are doing.

D L X wrote:
But at least you've backed down from the canard that black-on-black crime is at all relevant.

I have not backed off on that, and now you are on record saying that 5,000 black on black murders per year is irrelevant, while 25 or so death by cop incidents is a huge deal - presumably because you can't scream "racism" about the former. Why take any responsibility when you can just blame others, eh?

I think MLK would be spinning in his grave if he could see BLM now.

Sorry to bring this back up, but maybe you should look at this and respond.

There are two sides to the BLM movement. I'm not sure if they are roughly of equal size, or if one is significantly bigger than the other. But one side is ugly, and that's the one that gets my attention and spoils the image of the entire movement like a turd in a pool.

On one side you have a peaceful movement people who aren’t saying that only black lives matter but rather reminding us that black lives also matter - that blacks should be treated with equal dignity in every part of American life, including by law enforcement. This version of Black Lives Matter wants transparency, accountability, and assurances that police abuse and violence will be fairly and impartially investigated - not swept under the rug. This version of Black Lives Matter seeks basic police reforms — such as body cameras, ending stop-and-frisk, or retraining police on de-escalation measures.

Right or wrong (mostly right, I would think), this side of BLM is reasonable, peaceful and worthy of respect and attention.

The other side of BLM is the ugly one. And you can find it right on the BLM website. Remember my statements about the effect of the breakdown in the black family and how having 70+% of black americans raised without both parents is statistically a fast track to poverty and crime?

We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

It's right there on their web page. BLM has no intention of encouraging black families and individuals to stop sabotaging their children's future. This mindless radicalism/cultural marxism is being used to actively discourage things like the nuclear family, education, self reliance and a work ethic, because those things are associated with "Western Patriarchy". Out of all their principles, I don't see a single thing about responsibility for ones' own behavior, or the value of work, fortitude and ambition.

These guys have a self-destructive ideology that needs to be eliminated, not pandered to.

Dreadnought · Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:21 am

seb146 wrote:
*facepalm*

Really? New Black Panthers a racist organization?

The Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights consider the New Black Panthers to be a racist hate group.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... ther-party

Here's what Bobby Seale, one of the original Black Panther leaders, has to say about them. In a 2010 interview, he called the group's rhetoric xenophobic and described its leaders' remarks as "absurd, racial, and categorical".

"We should never, ever stoop to the low level of the mentality of a racist to just hate another person because of the color of their skin or ethnicity. We don't do that. That's not the goal objective. The goal objective is human liberation. The goal objective is the greater community cooperation of humanism. The goal objective is to get rid of institutionalized racism."

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/08/cnr.02.html

seb146 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:21 am

Dreadnought wrote:
There are two sides to the BLM movement. I'm not sure if they are roughly of equal size, or if one is significantly bigger than the other. But one side is ugly, and that's the one that gets my attention and spoils the image of the entire movement like a turd in a pool.

Kinda like the xenophobic, racist, hate filled, evangelical right wingers within the Republican party. A very small and very vocal group that the "media" focuses on.

MaverickM11 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:37 pm

BMI727 wrote:
You can't find one place where I've advocated for discrimination. I've advocated for freedom and I accept that people will use that to do bad things sometimes, including discriminate against others, but that's really none of my business.

You're advocating for a system that gives the dominant group in power more freedom to discriminate, at the expense of everyone else. If you think that's going to make minorities better off, you're an idiot. If you know that it will make every minority worse off, but still push for it anyway, you're racist. So which is it? Racist or idiot? Both maybe?

BMI727 wrote:
You've repeated this ad nauseum but you still can't name one right that minorities would lose.

So you'd be more than happy to trade places with them, since they'd lose no rights. Right? Of course not.

BMI727 wrote:
Wouldn't it be racist to believe that the racial makeup of a group determines its legitimacy?

No one said it wasn't legitimate. Most just seem to agree it's a dead end philosophy that collapses at the faintest whiff of reality. You sound like those men's rights activist groups that call women "man haters" when they reject their creepy advances and vicious misogyny. Let us know when libertarians convince enough minorities to join to raise the non white percentage to a whopping 10% like the multi-culti GOP.

seb146 wrote:
Kinda like the xenophobic, racist, hate filled, evangelical right wingers within the Republican party. A very small and very vocal group that the "media" focuses on.

"Very small and very vocal" that dictates the GOP platform.

Dreadnought wrote:
The Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights consider the New Black Panthers to be a racist hate group.

We should DEFINITELY arm them then.

In other news, Obama spoke solemnly about the shooting, hitting just about every aspect and context that has resulted in both the cops' deaths, as well as the frustration with unnecessary civilian deaths. Later GWB did the hokey pokey:
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nat ... /87022542/

BMI727 · Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:30 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
You're advocating for a system that gives the dominant group in power more freedom to discriminate, at the expense of everyone else.

It would give everyone the same freedom and you've yet to articulate what "everyone else" would lose.

MaverickM11 wrote:
So which is it? Racist or idiot? Both maybe?

Apparently neither since nobody can find evidence of either.

MaverickM11 wrote:
So you'd be more than happy to trade places with them, since they'd lose no rights.

No more or less willing than I am today. And you still haven't named one right a minority would lose.

MaverickM11 wrote:
No one said it wasn't legitimate. Most just seem to agree it's a dead end philosophy that collapses at the faintest whiff of reality.

I'm not the one making a case for or against a group or idea based on the racial makeup of its adherents.

MaverickM11 · Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:38 pm

BMI727 wrote:
It would give everyone the same freedom and you've yet to articulate what "everyone else" would lose.

I have several times. It's literally on repeat. The dominant group would continue to dominate, but now with freedom to discriminate.

BMI727 wrote:
No more or less willing than I am today. And you still haven't named one right a minority would lose.

Bullshit. Minorities could lose out on *everything* that isn't a government service. In the right small town that doesn't like gays/blacks/Mexicans/you-name-it, they could be shut out of every non-government service.

BMI727 wrote:
I'm not the one making a case for or against a group or idea based on the racial makeup of its adherents.

Whatever it takes to convince yourself you're not racist...cuz you sure as hell aren't convincing anyone else.

Dreadnought · Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:01 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Minorities could lose out on *everything* that isn't a government service. In the right small town that doesn't like gays/blacks/Mexicans/you-name-it, they could be shut out of every non-government service.

And here you have your most basic problem. You are assuming that everyone (at least white people) is a racist. With no evidence whatsoever.

Let's see... what do you call believing in something whole-heartedly with no supporting evidence. Ah, yes. Religion.

seb146 · Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:20 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Minorities could lose out on *everything* that isn't a government service. In the right small town that doesn't like gays/blacks/Mexicans/you-name-it, they could be shut out of every non-government service.

And here you have your most basic problem. You are assuming that everyone (at least white people) is a racist. With no evidence whatsoever.

Let's see... what do you call believing in something whole-heartedly with no supporting evidence. Ah, yes. Religion.

And "All Lives Matter." Because they are not racist at all, are they?

flyguy89 · Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:49 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
I'm not the one making a case for or against a group or idea based on the racial makeup of its adherents.

Whatever it takes to convince yourself you're not racist...cuz you sure as hell aren't convincing anyone else.

You never did answer my earlier question. Do you support the proposals below to police people's lives in these ways to stop discrimination? Because by your logic if you don't, then you're also racist...which I guess works out since everyone and anyone ever in your view is racist.

flyguy89 wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
I asked point blank if such EMTs would be government employed/contracted or not. Unsurprisingly, no answer.

You made it clear that if they're private, they can let someone die for LIBERTY. Not you of course, but somebody that doesn't share your privilege. Again, for freedom. So big of you.

A black person could also be drowning in a lake and a racist person nearby could theoretically just let them die. Are you in favor of the government stepping in and policing peoples' lives in this respect as well?

Looking at it the other way, there are probably some racist people who might go out of their way not to patronize a black-owned/operated establishment, but do you think the government should step in and be policing those instances as well? I'll guess that you probably don't...but using your logic, if you didn't support that, you'd be a racist.

Dreadnought · Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:22 pm

seb146 wrote:
And "All Lives Matter." Because they are not racist at all, are they?

By definition, it is not. Shame on all those who get their panties in a wad over "All Lives Matter"

MaverickM11 · Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:41 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
seb146 wrote:
And "All Lives Matter." Because they are not racist at all, are they?

By definition, it is not. Shame on all those who get their panties in a wad over "All Lives Matter"

Where were the "All Lives Matter" crowd before BLM became a thing? *crickets*

Dreadnought · Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:25 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Where were the "All Lives Matter" crowd before BLM became a thing? *crickets*

And BLM does not care about black lives, or they would not advocate things that directly increase the black-on-black crime rate, like eliminating the nuclear family, and (new one I just heard yesterday) abolishing the police force altogether.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2016/07/08/50347/black-lives-matter-attorney-the-movement-will-not/

MaverickM11 · Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:02 pm

Dreadnought wrote:
And BLM does not care about black lives, or they would not advocate things that directly increase the black-on-black crime rate, like eliminating the nuclear family, and (new one I just heard yesterday) abolishing the police force altogether.

Where do you find any evidence of either of these claims since a) no one suggests "eliminating the nuclear family" and b) "(Note: Gyamfi does not speak for Black Lives Matter.)".

Redd · Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:06 pm

L-188 wrote:

And of course we are going to get the regular group of anti-gun loosers that are members of A.net coming out here and blaming the tool used

And like most of the pro gun, pro Trump crowd, you lack the intellectual capacity to state your opinion without resorting to insults (btw it's spelled Loser not Looser). Do you actually think people take insult to your senseless rambling?

MaverickM11 · Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:09 pm

Redd wrote:
L-188 wrote:

And of course we are going to get the regular group of anti-gun loosers that are members of A.net coming out here and blaming the tool used

And like most of the pro gun, pro Trump crowd, you lack the intellectual capacity to state your opinion without resorting to insults (btw it's spelled Loser not Looser unless you're attempting to make words up). Do you actually think people take insult to your senseless rambling?

He's tellin' it like it is! ...In his level of grammar/vocabulary/reality comprehension

Dreadnought · Thu Jul 14, 2016 11:57 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Where do you find any evidence of either of these claims since a) no one suggests "eliminating the nuclear family" and b) "(Note: Gyamfi does not speak for Black Lives Matter.)".

I gave you the link.

We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.

As I read this, The want the "Village" (aka the state) to take care of "mothers, parents and children" (presumably by food stamps and other transfer payments). No hint at what young men are supposed to be doing. Their disdain for the nuclear family (and thus being responsible to raise your own progeny) is quite obvious even for you.

Gyamfi may not speak for them, but I have heard this idea a number of times over the past couple of days from different sources. Clearly a popular idea in some circles.

MaverickM11 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:10 am

Dreadnought wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Where do you find any evidence of either of these claims since a) no one suggests "eliminating the nuclear family" and b) "(Note: Gyamfi does not speak for Black Lives Matter.)".

I gave you the link.

We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.

As I read this, The want the "Village" (aka the state) to take care of "mothers, parents and children" (presumably by food stamps and other transfer payments). No hint at what young men are supposed to be doing. Their disdain for the nuclear family (and thus being responsible to raise your own progeny) is quite obvious even for you.

Gyamfi may not speak for them, but I have heard this idea a number of times over the past couple of days from different sources. Clearly a popular idea in some circles.

So you didn't READ the links you provided?

MaverickM11 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:11 am

Dreadnought wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Where do you find any evidence of either of these claims since a) no one suggests "eliminating the nuclear family" and b) "(Note: Gyamfi does not speak for Black Lives Matter.)".

I gave you the link.

We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.

As I read this, The want the "Village" (aka the state) to take care of "mothers, parents and children" (presumably by food stamps and other transfer payments). No hint at what young men are supposed to be doing. Their disdain for the nuclear family (and thus being responsible to raise your own progeny) is quite obvious even for you.

Gyamfi may not speak for them, but I have heard this idea a number of times over the past couple of days from different sources. Clearly a popular idea in some circles.

So you didn't READ the links you provided?

seb146 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 am

Dreadnought wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Where were the "All Lives Matter" crowd before BLM became a thing? *crickets*

And BLM does not care about black lives, or they would not advocate things that directly increase the black-on-black crime rate, like eliminating the nuclear family, and (new one I just heard yesterday) abolishing the police force altogether.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2016/07/08/50347/black-lives-matter-attorney-the-movement-will-not/

I can't even....

The core values of BLM are justice and equality. Do you even read things you post? Just because a few idiots stoke violence. You are always one of the first to scream "don't blame ALL Republicans!" and "stop painting ALL Republicans with a broad brush!" but when it fits your narrative....

BMI727 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
I have several times.

You haven't named a single right minorities would lose.

MaverickM11 wrote:
The dominant group would continue to dominate, but now with freedom to discriminate.

Which rights would the dominant group have the freedom to violate?

MaverickM11 wrote:
Minorities could lose out on *everything* that isn't a government service.

Which rights are not protected by the government and thus are protected by private entities that would violate them through discrimination?

MaverickM11 wrote:
In the right small town that doesn't like gays/blacks/Mexicans/you-name-it, they could be shut out of every non-government service.

What non-government services do people have a right to? What private entities do I have the right to enslave?

MaverickM11 wrote:
Whatever it takes to convince yourself you're not racist...cuz you sure as hell aren't convincing anyone else.

You can't provide a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions.

lorm · Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:49 am

BLM will call you a house nigger and a white mans bed wench when you’re a black grandmother speaking out against gang violence that killed a black 9 year old girl.

http://youtu.be/52eRAimHimc

Your black life doesn’t matter if you aren’t a duck stepping #blacklivesmatter lemming. Fuck BLM.

N867DA · Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:34 am

BMI727 wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
I have several times.

You haven't named a single right minorities would lose.

MaverickM11 wrote:
The dominant group would continue to dominate, but now with freedom to discriminate.

Which rights would the dominant group have the freedom to violate?

MaverickM11 wrote:
Minorities could lose out on *everything* that isn't a government service.

Which rights are not protected by the government and thus are protected by private entities that would violate them through discrimination?

MaverickM11 wrote:
In the right small town that doesn't like gays/blacks/Mexicans/you-name-it, they could be shut out of every non-government service.

What non-government services do people have a right to? What private entities do I have the right to enslave?

MaverickM11 wrote:
Whatever it takes to convince yourself you're not racist...cuz you sure as hell aren't convincing anyone else.

You can't provide a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions.

BMI727 is 'technically' right. Store owners who can discriminate on any criteria are not taking away any rights from the minority group because the minority group has the right to discriminate too. Everyone's on equal footing. I'm just really glad no lawmakers seriously advocates such garbage ideas. There is an upper bound to liberty. It may not please people to think of it in such blatant terms, but I am OK with it. I would rather people who want to discriminate based on a protect class take their ball and stay home than try to justify their discrimination.

seb146 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:12 am

N867DA wrote:
BMI727 is 'technically' right. Store owners who can discriminate on any criteria are not taking away any rights from the minority group because the minority group has the right to discriminate too. Everyone's on equal footing.

Not really. Because a business is open to all does not give them the right to tell certain people they can not shop there. If they were a private organization, then, yes, they can deny service. Companies like Wal-Mart and Target and McDonalds can only deny service to people who do not have money. I choose not to eat at Chic-Fil-A because the owner is anti-LGBTQ. The store itself can not deny me service just by me being there. If a friend or family member worked there, I might buy something just to support them, but I know some of that money would go to people who are anti-LGBTQ. If I were to disrupt their business, then, yes, they could deny me service. But, the simple fact of me being there gives them no grounds for my denial of service.

Dreadnought · Fri Jul 15, 2016 2:42 am

seb146 wrote:
N867DA wrote:
BMI727 is 'technically' right. Store owners who can discriminate on any criteria are not taking away any rights from the minority group because the minority group has the right to discriminate too. Everyone's on equal footing.

Not really. Because a business is open to all does not give them the right to tell certain people they can not shop there. If they were a private organization, then, yes, they can deny service.

Yes really. Ever hear of "no shirt, no shoes, no service"? If a business owner is willing to lose revenue by denying service to certain people, that's his business. Just like it is the customer's prerogative not to go to a certain business for whatever reason (like you mentioned you do with Chic-Fil-A).

Any customer-supplier relationship MUST be voluntary.

seb146 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:53 am

Dreadnought wrote:
seb146 wrote:
N867DA wrote:
BMI727 is 'technically' right. Store owners who can discriminate on any criteria are not taking away any rights from the minority group because the minority group has the right to discriminate too. Everyone's on equal footing.

Not really. Because a business is open to all does not give them the right to tell certain people they can not shop there. If they were a private organization, then, yes, they can deny service.

Yes really. Ever hear of "no shirt, no shoes, no service"? If a business owner is willing to lose revenue by denying service to certain people, that's his business. Just like it is the customer's prerogative not to go to a certain business for whatever reason (like you mentioned you do with Chic-Fil-A).

Any customer-supplier relationship MUST be voluntary.

No shirt, no shoes is health code. Has nothing to do with what two consenting adults do behind closed doors or what contract two consenting adults sign. This is another case of small government right wingers telling the rest of the world how to live and what moral code to live by.

Dreadnought · Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:23 am

seb146 wrote:
No shirt, no shoes is health code. Has nothing to do with what two consenting adults do behind closed doors or what contract two consenting adults sign. This is another case of small government right wingers telling the rest of the world how to live and what moral code to live by.

There is no need for a reason.

In general, a seller has the right to choose its business partners. A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/refusal-supply

I can refuse you service if I don't like the color of your eyes, or if I find you have a bad attitude. Or just because I don't feel like it. Just like you have the choice to come to my store or to the one next door.

Edit: The key is what's called "Market Power". If I am the only supplier within a reasonable distance (i.e. I have market power), then I might get in trouble if I refuse to deal with you. But if there are 20 other stores you can go to in a 5 mile radius, I have no market power, because you can go someplace else.

Anyway, that is federal law, and maybe some states have other laws.

One thing that was funny last year (although not for the victims) was that whole story about the bakers who refused to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Apparently the buyers called up about 30 bakeries until they found one that would refuse, and then they start a huge bruhaha. They were intentionally looking for a fight. Anyway, In comes Bruce Springsteen who says that he will refuse to play in that state because of the issue. Apparently Springsteen never was told that you are not allowed not to sell your product to people who might want to buy it...

seb146 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:24 am

Dreadnought wrote:
seb146 wrote:
No shirt, no shoes is health code. Has nothing to do with what two consenting adults do behind closed doors or what contract two consenting adults sign. This is another case of small government right wingers telling the rest of the world how to live and what moral code to live by.

There is no need for a reason.

In general, a seller has the right to choose its business partners. A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/refusal-supply

I can refuse you service if I don't like the color of your eyes, or if I find you have a bad attitude. Or just because I don't feel like it. Just like you have the choice to come to my store or to the one next door.

Edit: The key is what's called "Market Power". If I am the only supplier within a reasonable distance (i.e. I have market power), then I might get in trouble if I refuse to deal with you. But if there are 20 other stores you can go to in a 5 mile radius, I have no market power, because you can go someplace else.

Anyway, that is federal law, and maybe some states have other laws.

One thing that was funny last year (although not for the victims) was that whole story about the bakers who refused to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Apparently the buyers called up about 30 bakeries until they found one that would refuse, and then they start a huge bruhaha. They were intentionally looking for a fight. Anyway, In comes Bruce Springsteen who says that he will refuse to play in that state because of the issue. Apparently Springsteen never was told that you are not allowed not to sell your product to people who might want to buy it...

Source?

If a company wants the most money, they will ignore what people do in the privacy of their home and who they fall in love with and just sell them crap. Example: Target. If a company does not care about money, they will openly discriminate. Example: Sweet Cakes.

flyguy89 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:18 am

seb146 wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
seb146 wrote:
No shirt, no shoes is health code. Has nothing to do with what two consenting adults do behind closed doors or what contract two consenting adults sign. This is another case of small government right wingers telling the rest of the world how to live and what moral code to live by.

There is no need for a reason.

In general, a seller has the right to choose its business partners. A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/refusal-supply

I can refuse you service if I don't like the color of your eyes, or if I find you have a bad attitude. Or just because I don't feel like it. Just like you have the choice to come to my store or to the one next door.

Edit: The key is what's called "Market Power". If I am the only supplier within a reasonable distance (i.e. I have market power), then I might get in trouble if I refuse to deal with you. But if there are 20 other stores you can go to in a 5 mile radius, I have no market power, because you can go someplace else.

Anyway, that is federal law, and maybe some states have other laws.

One thing that was funny last year (although not for the victims) was that whole story about the bakers who refused to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Apparently the buyers called up about 30 bakeries until they found one that would refuse, and then they start a huge bruhaha. They were intentionally looking for a fight. Anyway, In comes Bruce Springsteen who says that he will refuse to play in that state because of the issue. Apparently Springsteen never was told that you are not allowed not to sell your product to people who might want to buy it...

Source?

Federal law. At present, federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Some 20-odd states, as well as some municipalities, have additional anti-discrimination protections on top of those proscribed by federal law. Keep in mind those apply to businesses, there are a whole host of other regulations from the employment side. So, for the most part, so long as it can't be proven you're discriminating based on race, color, religion, and national origin, you can pretty much discriminate any other way you'd like (i.e. eye color, attitude, sexual orientation...etc.)

seb146 wrote:
If a company wants the most money, they will ignore what people do in the privacy of their home and who they fall in love with and just sell them crap. Example: Target. If a company does not care about money, they will openly discriminate. Example: Sweet Cakes.

They will openly discriminate and actually pay a price for it. Think of it as a market tax for discrimination. When you ask people the simple question of why they think racism is bad, so many completely miss one of the more obvious answers...it's stupid. It's stupid to ascribe blanket attributes to people based on the color of their skin. And exactly as you mentioned, it's stupid as a business to turn down money from a customer because of the color of their skin or what they do in the privacy of their homes, but the vast majority of the successful businesses you see around you and interact with each day didn't get that way by being stupid.

While businesses are free to discriminate based on sexuality in most of the U.S. today, such discrimination is really pretty rare, and where it does happen, society and the market act very swiftly without the coercion of the federal government. As you've alluded to a number of times, you have an idea of where your sexuality is accepted or not an issue, and you're happy to avoid and not give money to places/businesses/organizations you feel are discriminatory or against. It would be the same for any other type of discrimination.

seb146 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:43 am

flyguy89 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:

There is no need for a reason.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/refusal-supply

I can refuse you service if I don't like the color of your eyes, or if I find you have a bad attitude. Or just because I don't feel like it. Just like you have the choice to come to my store or to the one next door.

Edit: The key is what's called "Market Power". If I am the only supplier within a reasonable distance (i.e. I have market power), then I might get in trouble if I refuse to deal with you. But if there are 20 other stores you can go to in a 5 mile radius, I have no market power, because you can go someplace else.

Anyway, that is federal law, and maybe some states have other laws.

One thing that was funny last year (although not for the victims) was that whole story about the bakers who refused to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Apparently the buyers called up about 30 bakeries until they found one that would refuse, and then they start a huge bruhaha. They were intentionally looking for a fight. Anyway, In comes Bruce Springsteen who says that he will refuse to play in that state because of the issue. Apparently Springsteen never was told that you are not allowed not to sell your product to people who might want to buy it...

Source?

Federal law. At present, federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Some 20-odd states, as well as some municipalities, have additional anti-discrimination protections on top of those proscribed by federal law. Keep in mind those apply to businesses, there are a whole host of other regulations from the employment side. So, for the most part, so long as it can't be proven you're discriminating based on race, color, religion, and national origin, you can pretty much discriminate any other way you'd like (i.e. eye color, attitude, sexual orientation...etc.)

seb146 wrote:
If a company wants the most money, they will ignore what people do in the privacy of their home and who they fall in love with and just sell them crap. Example: Target. If a company does not care about money, they will openly discriminate. Example: Sweet Cakes.

They will openly discriminate and actually pay a price for it. Think of it as a market tax for discrimination. When you ask people the simple question of why they think racism is bad, so many completely miss one of the more obvious answers...it's stupid. It's stupid to ascribe blanket attributes to people based on the color of their skin. And exactly as you mentioned, it's stupid as a business to turn down money from a customer because of the color of their skin or what they do in the privacy of their homes, but the vast majority of the successful businesses you see around you and interact with each day didn't get that way by being stupid.

While businesses are free to discriminate based on sexuality in most of the U.S. today, such discrimination is really pretty rare, and where it does happen, society and the market act very swiftly without the coercion of the federal government. As you've alluded to a number of times, you have an idea of where your sexuality is accepted or not an issue, and you're happy to avoid and not give money to places/businesses/organizations you feel are discriminatory or against. It would be the same for any other type of discrimination.

This is about the party of small government and the party of personal responsibility and the party of open and fair and equality. They keep saying that but do just the opposite. The party of "let all Americans be equal" loves to see LGBTQ people discriminated so they can say "look how gays hate America!" and are the party of "all lives matter" while they ignore unarmed and legal open carry blacks are murdered. This is about "do as I say, not as I do" and scoffing when they are called out on it. This is about the constant "yeah, but..." because their being discriminated against is worse than anyone else. They say "religious liberty" but insist that Muslim women with hijab and burqa have bombs. They say "family" and "children" and insist that child molesters and rapists from their party are really the other guys. The party of personal responsibility is more like the party of "me first and f**k everyone else!"

seb146 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:52 am

I was born in Kansas and raised in Oregon. I should not have to fear for my life when I visit my family, who still live in evangelical, right wing Oregon. I, as a legal American, should not have to take up arms to defend myself against other white Americans. I should not have to feel guilt and shame for how I was born. These "patriot" types who insist that America is for all patriotic and vote in ever election Americans should not feel threatened by what I and my husband do in the privacy of our home. I am sick and tired of them projecting their hatred because of how they are told to hate. If they can be manipulated that easily, that is on them. Stop trying to make me the bad guy. You simple minded ones are who insist it is our fault. For demanding equality. Tell me again how demanding equality is so bad? Tell me again how wanting to live is so bad? You all hate this one class system, leave. No one is stopping you. Good luck and may the deity of your choice have mercy on you, if that is how you believe. My Constitution and laws talk about ALL and EVERY. My Constitution and laws are not limited to white men anymore. This is not 1840. Blacks and gays and women and Asians who were born here and are legal here have rights here. If you don't like it, tough. This is OUR country. Not yours. If you want YOUR country back, leave. Go back to Germany or France or Spain or England or Sweden or wherever your ancestors are from. Oh, wait.....

Okie · Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:51 pm

seb146 wrote:
This is OUR country. Not yours. If you want YOUR country back, leave.

So now you are claiming to be of the Wantabee Indian Tribe?

Okie

seb146 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:19 pm

Okie wrote:
seb146 wrote:
This is OUR country. Not yours. If you want YOUR country back, leave.

So now you are claiming to be of the Wantabee Indian Tribe?

Okie

I am claiming that people crying "we want our country back" and "take America back" are racists and homophobes and Islamophobes and want to whitewash everything. If you are not white heterosexual Christian, you are a second class citizen to them and I am sick and tired of it.

MaverickM11 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:27 pm

BMI727 wrote:
What non-government services do people have a right to? What private entities do I have the right to enslave?

Once you've privatized all government services? I suppose minorities have the right to bow to you and maybe steal your crumbs off the floor? After all it's not you on the losing end. It's everyone else. Is right to life a right you still recognize? Or did you move the goalpost to exclude that too. I don't understand why you don't move to one of the many at-will states, get fired from your job for claiming to be gay, and indulge in the deluge of freedom it unleashes? Just imagine how much happiness and food and rent all that freedom would afford you! Or maybe Somalia? Afghanistan? So much freedom. So little government.

BMI727 wrote:
You can't provide a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions.

Seeing as your nearly all white, mostly male party can't seem to make its case successfully anywhere on the planet in recorded history, nor attract anyone non white/male to their cause, what more evidence do you need that it's racist, idiotic nonstarter?

N867DA wrote:
BMI727 is 'technically' right. Store owners who can discriminate on any criteria are not taking away any rights from the minority group because the minority group has the right to discriminate too. Everyone's on equal footing. I'm just really glad no lawmakers seriously advocates such garbage ideas. There is an upper bound to liberty. It may not please people to think of it in such blatant terms, but I am OK with it. I would rather people who want to discriminate based on a protect class take their ball and stay home than try to justify their discrimination.

Sure communism is also "technically" an interesting idea where everyone is equally equal, if you ignore reality and human nature. And communist adherents will sing the same refrain as libertarians when you challenge them on any of the fatal flaws in their ideology "that's not TRUE communism/libertarianism". You can say everyone is "equal" in terms of discrimination but still have starkly different outcomes, and if you know that to be the case and still abet the process, you can't hide behind the fig leaf of "freedom" or "I'm not racist!". It does not upend the hierarchy--it reinforces it and exacerbates it, and as you mentioned lawmakers are smart enough to avoid it like the plague because it would have disastrous consequences.

MaverickM11 · Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:38 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
What non-government services do people have a right to? What private entities do I have the right to enslave?

Once you've privatized all government services? I suppose minorities have the right to bow to you and maybe steal your crumbs off the floor? After all it's not you on the losing end. It's everyone else. Is right to life a right you still recognize? Or did you move the goalpost to exclude that too. I don't understand why you don't move to one of the many at-will states, get fired from your job for claiming to be gay, and indulge in the deluge of freedom it unleashes? Just imagine how much happiness and food and rent all that freedom would afford you! Or maybe Somalia? Afghanistan? So much freedom. So little government. Let's say in your totally not racist utopia a small town decides en masse that it doesn't like gays/blacks/Jews, and discriminates them from every service including the now privatized schools and hospitals. What are the gays/blacks/Jews supposed to do with their freedom overload?

BMI727 wrote:
You can't provide a shred of evidence to back up any of your assertions.

Seeing as your nearly all white, mostly male party can't seem to make its case successfully anywhere on the planet in recorded history, nor attract anyone non white/male to their cause, what more evidence do you need that it's racist, idiotic nonstarter?

N867DA wrote:
BMI727 is 'technically' right. Store owners who can discriminate on any criteria are not taking away any rights from the minority group because the minority group has the right to discriminate too. Everyone's on equal footing. I'm just really glad no lawmakers seriously advocates such garbage ideas. There is an upper bound to liberty. It may not please people to think of it in such blatant terms, but I am OK with it. I would rather people who want to discriminate based on a protect class take their ball and stay home than try to justify their discrimination.

Sure communism is also "technically" an interesting idea where everyone is equally equal, if you ignore reality and human nature. And communist adherents will sing the same refrain as libertarians when you challenge them on any of the fatal flaws in their ideology "that's not TRUE communism/libertarianism". You can say everyone is "equal" in terms of discrimination but still have starkly different outcomes, and if you know that to be the case and still abet the process, you can't hide behind the fig leaf of "freedom" or "I'm not racist!". It does not upend the hierarchy--it reinforces it and exacerbates it, and as you mentioned lawmakers are smart enough to avoid it like the plague because it would have disastrous consequences.

L-188 · Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:22 am

Dreadnought wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:

Next, should an invitation be issued for the KKK to do an armed protest at the DNC?

I doubt the KKK would do that since most of them are and historically were democrats, Don't believe me? see Robert Byrd.

seb146 · Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:50 am

L-188 wrote:
Dreadnought wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:

I doubt the KKK would do that since most of them are and historically were democrats, Don't believe me? see Robert Byrd.

They are not now Democrats. They probably were in the past but, with a black man as head of the country, I seriously doubt many visible members of KKK are Democrats. Further, Democrats who once were KKK have resigned their KKK memberships and vote for equality and Democratic principles. See Robert Byrd.

salttee · Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:40 am

The claim Dems are racists too; see Byrd is blatantly false as well as being a disingenuous assertion by all who (repeatedly) make it.

It is no big secret that the racists left the Democratic party in droves beginning with LBJ's focus on civil rights. The racists that remained were the leadership of the southern states which then were brought into the Republican tent by Nixon with his "southern strategy." Those old "blue dog Democrat" southern states are now known as "red" states; they now form the bulk of the GOP electorate. While Nixon got his election victories in 68 & 72, the Democratic party was fortunate to have had a house cleaning which removed most of the regressive and racist influence that came from the political leadership in those states. They took their influence as well as their votes with them when they migrated to the Republican party.

The people who form the current Democratic party are descended from the liberal wing of the old (pre-64) Democratic party and the moderate wing of what was the Republican party of the 70s.

BMI727 · Sat Jul 16, 2016 1:46 am

seb146 wrote:
Because a business is open to all does not give them the right to tell certain people they can not shop there

...because apparently you believe that business owners are second class citizens.

seb146 wrote:
I should not have to fear for my life when I visit my family, who still live in evangelical, right wing Oregon.

Has anyone actually threatened you or attacked you?

seb146 wrote:
I should not have to feel guilt and shame for how I was born.

How you feel is your thing.

MaverickM11 wrote:
Once you've privatized all government services?

You obviously never read what I wrote. You'll never prove me wrong by agreeing with what I've already said.

MaverickM11 wrote:
Is right to life a right you still recognize?

Feel free to find where I said it isn't.

MaverickM11 wrote:
Seeing as your nearly all white, mostly male party can't seem to make its case successfully anywhere on the planet in recorded history,

Actually it worked very well. Things didn't start to really slide downhill until the 1930s or so.

MaverickM11 wrote:
Just imagine how much happiness and food and rent all that freedom would afford you! Or maybe Somalia? Afghanistan? So much freedom. So little government.

If you want to argue with an anarchist you'll have to go find one first.

MaverickM11 wrote:
Sure communism is also "technically" an interesting idea where everyone is equally equal, if you ignore reality and human nature

You can achieve equality by protecting everyone's rights or by violating everyone's rights. Communism does the latter, in theory.

MaverickM11 wrote:
You can say everyone is "equal" in terms of discrimination but still have starkly different outcomes, and if you know that to be the case and still abet the process, you can't hide behind the fig leaf of "freedom" or "I'm not racist!".

The purpose of government is not to ensure that everyone gets the same outcome.

MaverickM11 · Sat Jul 16, 2016 7:56 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Feel free to find where I said it isn't.

You've made it clear letting minorities die and/or preventing them from living is "freedom", as long as the government isn't doing the damage.

BMI727 wrote:
Actually it worked very well. Things didn't start to really slide downhill until the 1930s or so.

Compelling argument. Except not at all. Make America great again! By returning to the 30s. You haven't mentioned how minorities completely shut out of all services in a small town enjoy their new found freedom and liberty. Can they pay bills with it? Eat it? Sell it to others for a basket of food?

BMI727 wrote:
The purpose of government is not to ensure that everyone gets the same outcome.

Of course not. The system exists to preserve your privilege and dominance at the expense of everyone else. Now do disabled people have rights in your dream world? Or do they just eat shit and rot because the ADA is a tyranny that infringes on your able bodied white male masturbatory fantasy of property and freedom?

BMI727 · Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:19 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
You've made it clear letting minorities die and/or preventing them from living is "freedom", as long as the government isn't doing the damage

It's the whole swinging your fist versus my face thing. You don't get to exercise your rights by violating the rights of others. By your standards I guess I should refuse to ever pay for food or medicine since having those things not provided to me violates my right to life right?

MaverickM11 wrote:
Compelling argument. Except not at all. Make America great again! By returning to the 30s.

The libertarian ideas were implemented in this country from its founding up until the massive government expansion of the New Deal, so you can't argue that it's never been done and doesn't work. The arguments of libertarians largely are pulled directly from the founding of the US.

MaverickM11 wrote:
You haven't mentioned how minorities completely shut out of all services in a small town enjoy their new found freedom and liberty.

What services are you talking about?

MaverickM11 wrote:
Now do disabled people have rights in your dream world?

The same rights as everyone else. Should I inform airlines that they are violating my rights by having seats that are not sufficiently comfortable for my 6'5" frame?

MaverickM11 wrote:
Or do they just eat shit and rot because the ADA is a tyranny that infringes on your able bodied white male masturbatory fantasy of property and freedom?

Having accessible facilities would be the nice thing for a private entity to do, not to mention being better for business. That said, it's not the government's job to be regulating doorways.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net