Rand Paul wins Senate Primary, soon to be a pro-legalization senator!

[hoosierdaddy]

See, disco...not once have you went to look up the definition of discrimination.
Do that and get back to us. You are the one who is certifiable.
And your not knowing what discrimination is shows me you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. You folks tend to make words mean what you want them to mean.
This is a large part of why you make some of the judgments you do..you simply don't understand what you are even debating.

Do you think it is right or just that a business owner decides to be discriminating in his offering of cuisine and provide only ethnic themed dishes?
Perhaps a kosher restaurant? Is that something that should be regulated by the state to ensure they practice no intolerance? Should they be allowed to discriminate that way at all?

Should I have the right to be offered another choice of food if I decide to eat there? Especially if what is on the menu offends me?

And let's try this one...do I have the right to discriminate against people that disco...errr...I mean pass gas in my establishment? Can I demand they leave and refuse them service for practicing their art during dinner in my diner? I think maybe in some cultures a big belch and a hefty fart signifies a pleased patron?

One more....
Some baptists don't much care for dancing. If I am one of those baptists and someone decides that bygod right after their steak would be a good time for a little dancing with the date? No harm done, right? Hell, you caint have a good steak in Texas without a live band and a dance floor handy.
Should I be able to throw those dancin texans out on their ten gallons? Or should the state stop me from discriminating? And who's rights are violated?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

See, when it all comes down to it...there are a million of the scenarios and questions to be asked. And it will all boil down to the fact that at some point someone must make a determination as to what is acceptable for our society and what is not. And that sort of things leaves the state on a lesser plane of credibility than the public itself.
And a free society can decide what is just and right on its own without the state putting in it's two cents and trying to legislate morality as it sees morality.

Basic concepts of individual liberties and free societies.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

One quick thought....
You know, we are supposed to be protected from discrimination based on race, creed, or religion. I wonder just how many of you wonderful saviors of our morality wouldn't hesitate to throw a few discriminatory remarks at religious sorts?
I bet we have folks seeing that a bit different, although they are afforded equal protections under current law.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Many inaliable rights are regulated and outlawed by the goverment. Murder, drugs, to name a couple. That does not make them 'not rights'.

That's about nuts enough to ignore the rest your schpeil there, jimbob. Deadly force isn't always murder and is even justified under the right circumstances.

How did I make a assumption regarding your political leaning I was simply trying to explain what a libertarian was not suggest that you was one... wich is quite obvious from your posts.

Well by all means, keep suggesting I'm ignorant and not just rejecting your philosophy.

This is where the real discussion begins third paragraph. You think that you can suspend peoples rights or take them away depending on your moral opinion of them. Society is a collection of individuals. If you protect individual rights you protect society rights they are not mutually exclusive.

I'm reverting back to the opening comment, beam me up Scotti.

Take a look at black and white newsreels from the 60s. I already know you guys are stand up citizens and purveyors of morality in the truest sense. But your idea things wouldn't regress is imagination.

Hopefully one day libertarian principles will be the main stream. The projected interpretation of them is lawlessness but in reality a constitutional conservative libertarian like myself would be fine with your city and state regulating 'society'.

Well that's interesting, you just admitted what no other defender of the faith has admitted in 23 pages of, (they) "won't discriminate and" (I'm) "a racist."

When you say we dont have the right to do something you are wrong imo. That is merely my opinion and understanding of inaliable rights. We lend rights to the goverment at any point we may take those rights back. If the goverment likes it will penalize us. This is what I do with cannabis. Its illegal none the less I run the risk of going to jail. They could not take away my right to smoke only I could let them do that.

Your opinion is your right. Interesting you bring up an analogy with such racial disparity. Pink bodies get fines and probation far more than their minority equivalent and prison is the only alternative.

Exactly, wich was my point and was hopefully helpful to the people that was trying to have a discussion with you. They have to understand that you literally interpret the constitution and goverment roles much differently than they do(and myself). Atleast thats my impression that they have a similair opinion to myself about rights.

Yeah, that's fine. Except for the parts where you infer ignorance and hoodeybaby starts with the "definitions" spaz.

I could see the writing on hoosier's wall before he typed it, something about misunderstanding such an elementary concept when he's busy flinging the goo. Goo doesn't take concept and imaginary paddlings are just another opportunity to correct the guy. Even the fun house has it's dull moments.

Im sure you will and that is scary. Im not looking to get into it with you I was simply trying to help out...

Thanks.....alot.

I like this last part where you in a around about way imply me to be a racist...

You and every other debate opponent. I'm not sure what word best describes your idea that individual liberty on a moral issue (multiplied by untold millions) will constitute anything close to what you imagine. That's right, you no more know what would happen than the people you claim don't know the very same thing. The outcome of actions. Just because you've got a cushy ethnic existence doesn't educate you to the point we no longer need societal controls over racial issues.

Not only do you want to repeal discrimination in the work place, a single read of the Libertarian manifesto reads like a litany of angst with minority and poverty issues.

well I suppose I can be honest and admit I have made a racial remark in my life.. am I proud of it ? no .. do I believe my race is superior .. no .. am i a racist? I believe we are all racist to some degree some of us just admit it. I dont try and try very hard not to be but its hard sometimes ... and ive employed all races with equal wages and everything else...

I have to say that sounds honest, sincere and you have nothing there to point the racist finger at you. But your idea of repeal don't hunt, I'm sorry. That's just my opinion


and a big enough chunk of the nations, enough to keep it that way.

What you fail to mention is im advocating ones right to be regulated by states and cities. Not by the federal goverment.

I only think it waters down your argument because I don't believe in states rights over issues where we get 50 ways to fuck something up.

I also cannot see how you can say that racial descrimination in a resteraunt or bar is related to the commerce clause.

I don't subscribe to your idea of "private" serving "public" escaping commerce, thus the clause is constitutional, IMO.

The meaning of regulate in those days was 'to make regular'. It was ment to make trade between states regular. In other words the current status quo with the insurance companies having monopolies in states is a example of them not using it properly. The idea was to keep states from tarrifing each other.

The idea of arbitration was to arbitrate over states that couldn't get along. States couldn't tell business owners not to discriminate, some of em were involved themselves. Big Daddy took control of an out of control situation and made it a crime because individuals otherwise chose to discriminate.

Article 4 section 4 ... this one will piss ya off .. =)



James Madison in the Federalist papers no 10:

Nah, James Madison's alright with me. He's dead and can't defend himself. It's not like James Madison's everything I disagree with.

I tried to save you guys the time long ago. You're not likely to cause me any reflection on constitutional grounds, the personal freedoms you don't have or the founding father's intent on a single page document. Especially with their own moral dilemmas.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

equal rights = everyone has equal rights.

Sorry, you've got a Libertarian view on that one. A once-over doesn't clear any disagreements on substance.

Rights are given to you by your mom and dad when your born and not the goverment...

Then the Constitution means dick.

Once you realize that you will realize that goverment intervention should not be necessary for we are all equal unless of course your racist and think some races are superior?

You're getting like hoosier, and that ain't good.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

See, disco...not once have you went to look up the definition of discrimination.
Do that and get back to us. You are the one who is certifiable.
And your not knowing what discrimination is shows me you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. You folks tend to make words mean what you want them to mean.
This is a large part of why you make some of the judgments you do..you simply don't understand what you are even debating.

Do you think it is right or just that a business owner decides to be discriminating in his offering of cuisine and provide only ethnic themed dishes?
Perhaps a kosher restaurant? Is that something that should be regulated by the state to ensure they practice no intolerance? Should they be allowed to discriminate that way at all?

Should I have the right to be offered another choice of food if I decide to eat there? Especially if what is on the menu offends me?

And let's try this one...do I have the right to discriminate against people that disco...errr...I mean pass gas in my establishment? Can I demand they leave and refuse them service for practicing their art during dinner in my diner? I think maybe in some cultures a big belch and a hefty fart signifies a pleased patron?

One more....
Some baptists don't much care for dancing. If I am one of those baptists and someone decides that bygod right after their steak would be a good time for a little dancing with the date? No harm done, right? Hell, you caint have a good steak in Texas without a live band and a dance floor handy.
Should I be able to throw those dancin texans out on their ten gallons? Or should the state stop me from discriminating? And who's rights are violated?

Your right to entertain is fleeting. My right to laugh is indelible.

 

[Texicannibus]

Try reading the federalist papers ... and try reading what I write before your retort because it seems you are not.
example I said:

Many inaliable rights are regulated and outlawed by the goverment. Murder, drugs, to name a couple. That does not make them 'not rights'.

Then you say:

That's about nuts enough to ignore the rest your schpeil there, jimbob. Deadly force isn't always murder and is even justified under the right circumstances

The only substance here is something about deadly force? Someone as familair with playing semantic games as yourself should be well aware I said nothing about deadly force. I said murder check out the definition...

It continues the same way your entire post ...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

See, when it all comes down to it...there are a million of the scenarios and questions to be asked.

None of which will be asked by the mainstream. Already been there and done that. What part of "mainstream" don't you understand. Wait a minute, forget I asked.

And it will all boil down to the fact that at some point someone must make a determination as to what is acceptable for our society and what is not. And that sort of things leaves the state on a lesser plane of credibility than the public itself.

It'll all boils down to what it was today, yesterday and tomorrow. It's called conformity and you can't stand it. "Someone" as an individual is gonna conform the masses? Tell me another....no don't. Even Lydon B didn't do that. The duly elected president, along with a duly elected Congress, along with generations of SOTUS and masses of the public won't touch your idea of "credibility" when it involves racially insensitive issues.

Texi, we're back to individual rights again. So much for state control.

And a free society can decide what is just and right on its own without the state putting in it's two cents and trying to legislate morality as it sees morality.

Is that what you see that they see (that you really can't see?) Forget legislating morality, the law legally prevents discrimination in the private business. You don't have to like it. It would behoove you to recognize your argument as an individual will argue with society and still not recognize the disparity in numbers.

Basic concepts of individual liberties and free societies.

I'll go head and finish that one for you.

....met an unusual, Libertarian adversary. The argument hasn't progress one iota with the general public. If it had, you'd see reverberations in Congress, not attempts to get Paul to stifle.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Try reading the federalist papers ... and try reading what I write before your retort because it seems you are not.
example I said:

Many inaliable rights are regulated and outlawed by the goverment. Murder, drugs, to name a couple. That does not make them 'not rights'.

Then you say:

That's about nuts enough to ignore the rest your schpeil there, jimbob. Deadly force isn't always murder and is even justified under the right circumstances

The only substance here is something about deadly force? Someone as familair with playing semantic games as yourself should be well aware I said nothing about deadly force. I said murder check out the definition...

It continues the same way your entire post ...

Then you say murder's a right? All right, you win the gong behind door #1. I threw you a bone, a legal one and you just mock the word semantics. I didn't agree "murder" as a right and thought you needed a little help to say "yes, deadly force is considerable" but murder? I'm sorry you're still relegated to "mystified" IMO.

I don't even have touch racial insensitivity, the whole concept is very uhh uhh uhh interesting!

All these bizarre analogies are useless to respond to. But I'll keep checking in, I'm never too shy to get a good laugh.

Gramps said it all in a single statement. All politicians deserve scrutiny.(paraphrased)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

One quick thought....

Uh oh, here's another quick thought from the "quick and simple, keep it short" guy.

You know, we are supposed to be protected from discrimination based on race, creed, or religion. I wonder just how many of you wonderful saviors of our morality wouldn't hesitate to throw a few discriminatory remarks at religious sorts?

Well, discriminatory remarks don't keep you from getting that samich at the counter. If you say "God bless you", I'll return a friendly sentiment and recognize you don't think first before you assume I'm religious, or that I worship YOUR god. If I returned the gesture by saying' "May Allah (or any entity other than Christian) smile on your ignorance (or) your lack of caring to get it right", you'd probably see the silliness of your analogy. In other words, you're not deprived of the samich because of you religious faux pa.

Now if you're the sort to try to learn me religion or talk down a religious nose and you'll get more than the samich, you'll get the special sauce along with it. If you were a veritable street corner preacher, I'd probably try to get the police on a public nuisance violation. "Forget the buck, just give him the samich, maybe he'll move on."

I bet we have folks seeing that a bit different, although they are afforded equal protections under current law.

Yeah, as long as you and I don't discriminate in our private business, (meaning for the slow ones) we can't deny doing business due to race, creed or religion. That's too long to type every time you guys challenge the same thing over and over. From here on out I will use the word discrimination (and believe me) I know what it means (Moe) and I know how it's being used without typing all the extra shit.

I thought I'd mention "national origin." For example, whites can't discriminate against other whites because they originate from a different nation.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Sorry I wasted my time. You are completely lost.
One thing though, if I happen to come into your restaurant and start preaching to you, and you decide you want to do anything besides serve me and smile, you better think again. See, you wouldn't have trouble special saucing a religious sort now would you?
You are a lousy fuck with that sort of attitude. Wait...skip the with that sort of attitude, you are just a lousy fuck.

Have a rotten life, Disco... you deserve it.

 

[Texicannibus]

Then you say murder's a right? All right, you win the gong behind door #1. I threw you a bone, a legal one and you just mock the word semantics. I didn't agree "murder" as a right and thought you needed a little help to say "yes, deadly force is considerable" but murder? I'm sorry you're still relegated to "mystified" IMO.

I don't don't even have touch racial insensitivity, the whole concept is very uhh uhh uhh interesting!

All these bizarre analogies are useless to respond to. But I'll keep checking in, I'm never too shy to get a good laugh.

Gramps said it all in a single statement. All politicians deserve scrutiny.(paraphrased)

LOL.. You tried to throw me a bone? Once again your naivity and framing of the argument are flawed. I am stating murder is a inaliable right as I have defined it. Sorry you cannot absorb that. Most of us loan that right to the goverment to regulate and control. People who commit murder... well you figure it out.

Of course you are perfectly racial sensative. LoL..

 

[Texicannibus]

One last thing I suggest unless paul said that white business owners or some other racial group had the right to descriminate but nobody else did .. that would be racist as you have suggested. The fact is that he extended this right to descriminate as you want to spin it.. to everyone ... yes or no? thanks

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

LOL.. You tried to throw me a bone? Once again your naivity and framing of the argument are flawed. I am stating murder is a inaliable right as I have defined it.

Murder is an inalienable right? What, did I misspell it or something? I never framed an argument on that one, pal. I played with it like a cat plays with a mouse. I guess I got too rough and hurt your feelings, that's where the flawed argument came in.

So I guess the same (sound) argument is you have the inaliable right to discriminate? Mom and dad gave you that right? The government took it away? Now you want that right back? But, like murder, you won't exercise that right? Do you want back your right to murder too?

Sorry you cannot absorb that. Most of us loan that right to the goverment to regulate and control. People who commit murder... well you figure it out.

Nah, you'll have to figure it out enough to make your analogy work and I don't think you can. You're like the others that tried to tiptoe around it because you're tired of the ice breaking underneath, you end up wet and you blame others for misunderstanding. In my opinion you misjudge the thickness of the ice as safe but it breaks every time you discuss your wish with folks that disagree.

Suggesting I figure it out is like suggesting one conclude the meaning of Paul's local newspaper interview. Except Paul didn't tell the interviewer to figure it out for himself. He sat there and pondered the comment he'd demonstrate (at the counter) against discrimination as abhorrent behavior, then he said he'd recognize their right to free speech. Can't absorb that one either.

I'll borrow Paul's logic for a moment. According to his videotaped interview:

Paul doesn't want government interference regarding racial discrimination with private business.

Paul recognizes discrimination as abhorrent.

Paul would demonstrate at Woolworth's counter if they didn't serve King a sandwich.

But, Paul would recognize the counter owner's right to free speech.

What does that mean? Would he side with one's inaliable right to racially discriminate. Would he demonstrate against it? Both?

You can flout all the argument framing you want. Or, you can attempt to explain it. I say "attempt" because I don't think you can.

Texi, is that the "hard part" of being a Libertarian? Paradox? Paul references getting misty hearing King's words. Would King agree with Paul's paradox? Paul seems to think (and even suggests) that King wanted government sanctioned racism to end but didn't want intrusion into private business. Would King don the pee jar in the trunk as consolation for those that still wanted to discriminate? After all, King could always pee in Rand's private eye clinic. If he wanted to, that is.

Rand's comments didn't flush. Rand's potential leader recommended a hiatus for Paul, suggesting neither understood. Now, you guys throw all the red candy you want. The public doesn't have a ratings system to punk. What are you going to explain when you hit that wall running like Paul did?

Of course you are perfectly racial sensative. LoL..

I think I'm just fine with not being racially insensitive. You can add all the context you wish but that's yours to read yourself.

I find it funny a guy tells me to figure it out then adds his own "perfect" context to others' comments. Another interesting aspect of personal freedoms. One better get with the program or risk being told to figure it out for them self. I asumed that was your reason for being here Texi, recognizing I don't agree and telling others I'm ignorant. I not only disagree, I think your reasoning is as bizarre as the klan kitchen analogy I was lambasted for referencing.

I'm not exercising the same logic that justifies murder as a right given by mom and dad. I disagree with that logic. You can claim ignorance all you want. I call it illogical. And so does enough of the country for Paul's leader to recommend Paul forget about his comments, at least until he gets back to Kentucky. But fortunately we'll get to hear any of Paul's (public) record, even in Kentucky.

Based on you guy's reaction to me, Paul wouldn't abhor the right to discriminate. He would demonstrate his abhorrence at my right to disagree. I wonder if Paul himself would be a better messenger, albeit the Woolworth's counter paradox.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Sorry I wasted my time. You are completely lost.

And you're deficient with reading comprehension.

One thing though, if I happen to come into your restaurant and start preaching to you, and you decide you want to do anything besides serve me and smile, you better think again. See, you wouldn't have trouble special saucing a religious sort now would you?

You can ignore this one like you did the initial response. Or you can recognize it as what would happen in a real world scenario.

Once I determined your screw is loose, you're millitant, you expect the right to preach (including service with a smile), you'd end up on the sidewalk and be told not to return. Upon return you'd meet the arresting officer and get some time to think about public disturbance in the clink.

You are a lousy fuck with that sort of attitude.

I've played your game of yes/no. I've added context where necessary. I don't care about your requirements, whether you change them at will, nor your losing attempt at rebuke. But I do get a little tired from bouncing you like a ball and kicking you to the side when your boorish attempts get old.

Wait...skip the with that sort of attitude, you are just a lousy fuck.

Have a rotten life, Disco... you deserve it.

My life's pretty good. Not only do I get to see how the other side thinks, I get to see how they'd react when I disagree. Keep it up, hoos. I can see the image. Even if I don't like the appearance, I still know what it looks like. Thanks you for providing.

See, I didn't have to create nor negate context to hold you up and show you off.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

One last thing I suggest unless paul said that white business owners or some other racial group had the right to descriminate but nobody else did .. that would be racist as you have suggested. The fact is that he extended this right to descriminate as you want to spin it.. to everyone ... yes or no? thanks

Wanna try that one again? Leave out "unless". Make your points clear and responses will reflect your clarity. Don't mix your fact with a question. Just state your fact, ask your question and my response will clearly be mine. And you already know I'll tell you what I think. You won't have to "guess" the same way you suggest I do with your idea.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

hoosier, I would say nice try but I'd be lying. Your negative rep reflects the couple of hundred negative reps you've given me in the past. 100% policy disagreement. Never mind the fact that repeated name calling is your only defense.

Newt Gingrich said the Tea Party is the militant wing of the GOP. Does Newt know you personally?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

How do you define miscreants? Is that Webster-defined or do I have to get the 5 o'clock revisionist historian's new meaning?

 

[MarquisBlack]

Quintuple post ftw.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

"I have a message, a message from the tea party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back"
-Rand Paul