I
IBreastfeedJohnMadden
Guest
Riiiight
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
Diesel66
Guest
Lew is generally against them.
I feel the interstate companies failed to comply with basic ideas of safety and brought the regulations upon themselves.
I feel the interstate companies failed to comply with basic ideas of safety and brought the regulations upon themselves.
T
Telecast
Guest
The local farm supply store has hurt themselves. The black farmer will have to buy their farm supplies from somewhere else. apply to any industry/business scenario.
Denying customers makes absolutely no business sense. Hence why there was typically segregation. Still, if there is a need, and entrepreneur will fill it. Not to mention, denying blacks might cause a boycott, which is a completely legitimate and constitutional way to get businesses to change their ways. The matter here is that the government does not have the authority to force me to labor for someone, and my reason are my own. They also dont have the authority to force me to allow people i don't want to onto my property.
Denying customers makes absolutely no business sense. Hence why there was typically segregation. Still, if there is a need, and entrepreneur will fill it. Not to mention, denying blacks might cause a boycott, which is a completely legitimate and constitutional way to get businesses to change their ways. The matter here is that the government does not have the authority to force me to labor for someone, and my reason are my own. They also dont have the authority to force me to allow people i don't want to onto my property.
I
IBreastfeedJohnMadden
Guest
Thanks. I'm really trying to get my head around this issue - its really interesting.
As a side note, I am really glad that the catalyst for this whole debate took place on NPR and Maddow's show. No matter what party affiliations you might have, both venues were fair and gave Paul a chance to explain what he meant.
As a side note, I am really glad that the catalyst for this whole debate took place on NPR and Maddow's show. No matter what party affiliations you might have, both venues were fair and gave Paul a chance to explain what he meant.
R
rothbard
Guest
Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (Windows Mobile; WCE; Opera Mobi/WMD-50369; U; en) Presto/2.4.13 Version/10.00)
Hey moron, the Constitution limits the Federal government, not individuals or businesses.
Hey moron, the Constitution limits the Federal government, not individuals or businesses.
O
Ozmar
Guest
How does one report a post?
R
rothbard
Guest
Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (Windows Mobile; WCE; Opera Mobi/WMD-50369; U; en) Presto/2.4.13 Version/10.00)
People were right to petition the government to correct its inequitable treatment of blacks. They were not correct in telling the government to force businesses to end discrimination.
People were right to petition the government to correct its inequitable treatment of blacks. They were not correct in telling the government to force businesses to end discrimination.
M
Man Bear Pig
Guest
Maybe you should watch the video where he says exactly that....
G
GFlem
Guest
The FDA is well and good-intentioned but it's woefully inefficient and private certifications and inspections companies do a much more thorough and effective job of inspections and their recommendation means more to me than an FDA stamp.
/signed, former agriculture-focused magazine staffer.
The USDA... not so clear on their track record, so I'll deign not to comment.
/signed, former agriculture-focused magazine staffer.
The USDA... not so clear on their track record, so I'll deign not to comment.
D
DryAndHigh
Guest
welfare pays for itself in your imaginary world? The point is that social-economic status is another means of dividing a population; like race, gender ect. Just because you have control over your income and not your skin color doesn't invalidate the analogy, it just changes the perspective, so much so, that it falls out of your normal frame of reference.* You might want to broaden that narrow worldview you're used to employing, or not, either way...
*when the first Spaniards tried finding new trade routes they ran into the southern portion of South America. They anchored their boats, took smaller ones on shore and met a tribe's shaman. They obviously spoke different languages, but there was still a level of communication. When they eventually got to the issue of how they got to that particular spot on the coast, they pointed to their small boats which they used to leave their larger boat. But the thing was, the shamen couldn't see the larger boat with sails that was floating off the coast. Why? Because he had no frame of reference for such a thing. Eventually he began to make out a shape in the corner of his eye, and finally, saw the boat for what it was. The point of this tangential anecdote? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
*when the first Spaniards tried finding new trade routes they ran into the southern portion of South America. They anchored their boats, took smaller ones on shore and met a tribe's shaman. They obviously spoke different languages, but there was still a level of communication. When they eventually got to the issue of how they got to that particular spot on the coast, they pointed to their small boats which they used to leave their larger boat. But the thing was, the shamen couldn't see the larger boat with sails that was floating off the coast. Why? Because he had no frame of reference for such a thing. Eventually he began to make out a shape in the corner of his eye, and finally, saw the boat for what it was. The point of this tangential anecdote? Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
H
hsmith
Guest
I don't think you grasp the concept of infringing on others rights.
T
Telecast
Guest
If you mean articulately express an idea that wasn't so masterfully expressed by Paul, then you bet.
H
hsmith
Guest
Using force against someone != telling someone they cannot buy a Popsicle from you because you don't like the color of their skin.
&
Σ
Guest
Glad to hear it.
R
rothbard
Guest
Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (Opera/9.80 (Windows Mobile; WCE; Opera Mobi/WMD-50369; U; en) Presto/2.4.13 Version/10.00)
oh and LGF is a horrible site. The only thing they believe in is anti-arab hate.
oh and LGF is a horrible site. The only thing they believe in is anti-arab hate.
I
IBreastfeedJohnMadden
Guest
or the flip-flop that his camp made the next day when they realized the mistake Paul made?
&
Σ
Guest
Don't. It's not worth it. Besides, he didnt break any rules.
O
Ozmar
Guest
You're right.
And for him, it takes a lot of balls to post something overtly racist like that on an internet forum, instead of saying to a black person in real life. A lot of balls.
And for him, it takes a lot of balls to post something overtly racist like that on an internet forum, instead of saying to a black person in real life. A lot of balls.
B
Braddlac
Guest
I don't think businesses should be above the law. Forcing someone to accept legal tender from you in exchange for a product or service is COERCIVE. It is the opposite of freedom. In fact, forcing someone to accept legal tender from you in exchange for a product or service is equivalent to someone forcing you to buy something, whether or not you want it. Freedom of speech is one aspect of freedom (one that I'm not concerned about and has little weight in this discussion). What I'm concerned with is that the legal system isn't being coercive to anyone. The absence of coercion is freedom.
T
Telecast
Guest
You are a moron.. Yes we do have that right. It is currently being infringed upon by our government. These rights are unalienable, and god given.