Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Deicide on May 10, 2011, 04:25:04 PM
-
-
I like Juan Williams. Surprised he likes Ron Paul.
But no, he's not the candidate to beat.
-
I like Juan Williams. Surprised he likes Ron Paul.
But no, he's not the candidate to beat.
Juan is one of the few that actually has a different take on some subjects then the rest of the dummies on FOX. Good interview, the judge rules.
-
Juan is one of the few that actually has a differnet take on some subjects then the rest of dummies on FOX.
Not really. The opinion shows always have (or at least attempt to have) a liberal viewpoint, along with a conservative viewpoint.
But I'd say the same thing about Juan Williams that he says about Ron Paul: he's intellectually honest.
-
(Ballot Box) — If the 2012 Republican presidential primary were held today, conservative voters would prefer New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain as their nominee, a new poll found.
According to the Zogby poll released Tuesday, 17 percent of GOP voters want Christie, who says he will not run for president in 2012 despite repeated urging from conservatives, to win the nomination. The poll found that Cain comes in second, with 14 percent. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was next, with 10 percent; the rest of the 10 or so names failed to get double digits.
But the Zogby poll also found that 31 percent of GOP voters think former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whom 9 percent of Republican voters want to win the nomination, is most likely to actually get the nomination. He leads in that category with former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, next in line with 8 percent of Republican voters.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/160339--poll-voters-top-gop-picks-are-christie-and-cain
-
(Ballot Box) — If the 2012 Republican presidential primary were held today, conservative voters would prefer New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain as their nominee, a new poll found.
According to the Zogby poll released Tuesday, 17 percent of GOP voters want Christie, who says he will not run for president in 2012 despite repeated urging from conservatives, to win the nomination. The poll found that Cain comes in second, with 14 percent. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was next, with 10 percent; the rest of the 10 or so names failed to get double digits.
But the Zogby poll also found that 31 percent of GOP voters think former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whom 9 percent of Republican voters want to win the nomination, is most likely to actually get the nomination. He leads in that category with former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, next in line with 8 percent of Republican voters.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/160339--poll-voters-top-gop-picks-are-christie-and-cain
l like Christie. If he doesn't run in 2012, he needs to stop eating cheeseburgers and run in 2016.
-
He's done. Time to pack it up.
WTF is wrong with him? Just when he gets rolling -he says bullshit like this.
________________________ _____________
Ron Paul: Killing OBL “absolutely was not necessary”
Hotair ^ | 05/12/2011 | Ed Morrissey
Ron Paul’s supporters plan on another run for the presidency from the Texas Congressman, and some are saying that the mainstream has finally begun to embrace his ideas on economics and the Fed. On foreign policy and national defense, though, perhaps Paul is farther out than ever. In a radio interview on Tuesday, reported this morning in Politico, Paul said he would not have greenlighted the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, and would have worked with Pakistan to arrest him instead:
“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”
Paul also told WHO’s Simon Conway that the mission “absolutely was not necessary”:
“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”
For one thing, had we found him holed up in London, we would have been able to trust the British intelligence service to cooperate. MI-5 didn’t spend more than a decade helping to build up the Taliban and playing footsie with radical Islamists the way Pakistan’s ISI did, primarily as a bulwark against India. Moreover, as Paul should know, we tried trusting Pakistan once before on an opportunity to target bin Laden when Bill Clinton had a chance to target his compound. The ISI warned bin Laden, and to paraphrase President George Bush, we wound up sending a $10 million rocket into a ten-dollar tent to hit a camel’s butt.
I would have had no problem with capturing Osama bin Laden, or with killing him. He declared war on the United States and continued to pursue it until his last breath. Furthermore, I have no problem with us conducting a military mission in Pakistan to get him. Pakistan has proven themselves unreliable on high-level intelligence matters in the past, specifically on OBL, and we have had little cause to put any more trust in the Pakistani ISI ever since.
Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but is otherwise a nut. Insisting that we should have asked the Pakistanis to arrest bin Laden proves rather clearly that Paul lives in a fantasy world.
-
i think we should have captured him and pumped him for intel. Why would you EVER just kill the HEAD of a terrorist organization when you can interrogate him for 5 years THEN pop him?
-
240 - I have a KA BAR and Glock 26 within about 10 feet of me at most times. If it were me - I would have not only beheaded OBL - but probably filmed it and put it on youtube signing Metallica's Seek & Destroy while doing it with a massive smile on my face. I would probably be head banging the whole time.
This is where RP pisses me off. Sorry - you attack my family - I'm coming after you like the 4 horsemen of the apocolypse and unleashing the dogs of war.
-
He's done. Time to pack it up.
WTF is wrong with him? Just when he gets rolling -he says bullshit like this.
________________________ _____________
Ron Paul: Killing OBL “absolutely was not necessary”
Hotair ^ | 05/12/2011 | Ed Morrissey
Ron Paul’s supporters plan on another run for the presidency from the Texas Congressman, and some are saying that the mainstream has finally begun to embrace his ideas on economics and the Fed. On foreign policy and national defense, though, perhaps Paul is farther out than ever. In a radio interview on Tuesday, reported this morning in Politico, Paul said he would not have greenlighted the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, and would have worked with Pakistan to arrest him instead:
“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”
Paul also told WHO’s Simon Conway that the mission “absolutely was not necessary”:
“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”
For one thing, had we found him holed up in London, we would have been able to trust the British intelligence service to cooperate. MI-5 didn’t spend more than a decade helping to build up the Taliban and playing footsie with radical Islamists the way Pakistan’s ISI did, primarily as a bulwark against India. Moreover, as Paul should know, we tried trusting Pakistan once before on an opportunity to target bin Laden when Bill Clinton had a chance to target his compound. The ISI warned bin Laden, and to paraphrase President George Bush, we wound up sending a $10 million rocket into a ten-dollar tent to hit a camel’s butt.
I would have had no problem with capturing Osama bin Laden, or with killing him. He declared war on the United States and continued to pursue it until his last breath. Furthermore, I have no problem with us conducting a military mission in Pakistan to get him. Pakistan has proven themselves unreliable on high-level intelligence matters in the past, specifically on OBL, and we have had little cause to put any more trust in the Pakistani ISI ever since.
Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but is otherwise a nut. Insisting that we should have asked the Pakistanis to arrest bin Laden proves rather clearly that Paul lives in a fantasy world.
Definitely fantasy. You really have to question whether he would be a good CIC when he makes comments like this.
-
This is where RP pisses me off. Sorry - this is utter horseshit on his part. This is where I tell Ron Paul to fuck off.
You attack me or my family - you better kill me and everyone else or its fucking on. No apologies, no second thoughts, its on.
I would decapitate and eat OBL's brains on live TV if they allowed me.
-
This is where RP pisses me off. Sorry - this is utter horseshit on his part. This is where I tell Ron Paul to fuck off.
You attack me or my family - you better kill me and everyone else or its fucking on. No apologies, no second thoughts, its on.
I would decapitate and eat OBL's brains on live TV if they allowed me.
There you go with the Satan-worshipping stuff, again.
;D
-
LOL @ this thread! ;D
-
i think we should have captured him and pumped him for intel. Why would you EVER just kill the HEAD of a terrorist organization when you can interrogate him for 5 years THEN pop him?
The legal shitstorm that would be brought down on them by lefties like you would far outweigh the benefits of keeping him alive.
What was fucking stupid was Obama's inability to control his stiffy by telling the world about all the intel they had. Good job giving the CIA and what not all of 2 hours to analyze it before telling all of OBL's buddies that it was time to hit the road. ::)
-
240 - I have a KA BAR and Glock 26 within about 10 feet of me at most times. If it were me - I would have not only beheaded OBL - but probably filmed it and put it on youtube signing Metallica's Seek & Destroy while doing it with a massive smile on my face. I would probably be head banging the whole time.
This is where RP pisses me off. Sorry - you attack my family - I'm coming after you like the 4 horsemen of the apocolypse and unleashing the dogs of war.
I saw that show. Damn. feels like yesterday.
-
This is where RP pisses me off. Sorry - this is utter horseshit on his part. This is where I tell Ron Paul to fuck off.
You attack me or my family - you better kill me and everyone else or its fucking on. No apologies, no second thoughts, its on.
I would decapitate and eat OBL's brains on live TV if they allowed me.
relax dude, Im going to do some more research on this and get back to you. As it stands Im surprised and puzzled.
-
Cause I'm a nyc er, this thing was real to me.
-
The legal shitstorm that would be brought down on them by lefties like you would far outweigh the benefits of keeping him alive.
What was fucking stupid was Obama's inability to control his stiffy by telling the world about all the intel they had. Good job giving the CIA and what not all of 2 hours to analyze it before telling all of OBL's buddies that it was time to hit the road. ::)
i've always said - close gitmo, put them on a carnival cruise ship, torture them for years then make em walk the plank.
i stand by this for OBL of course. Tell the world he's dead, then capture and torture him and pump him for intel. If he's RUNNING the al-Q terror network, as we are told he was doing, it's be ASININE to just pop him when you could interrogate him.
Even if he'd lie... you pump him with enough electricity or drugs and he'll talk.
seriously, bz, you don't really think i'd sue to keep his ass out of that, do you? My whole beef is bragging about torturing them. You do it, and you STFU about it, period.
-
He's done. Time to pack it up.
WTF is wrong with him? Just when he gets rolling -he says bullshit like this.
He's got some great ideas and some REALLY stupid ones.
-
i've always said - close gitmo, put them on a carnival cruise ship, torture them for years then make em walk the plank.
i stand by this for OBL of course. Tell the world he's dead, then capture and torture him and pump him for intel. If he's RUNNING the al-Q terror network, as we are told he was doing, it's be ASININE to just pop him when you could interrogate him.
Even if he'd lie... you pump him with enough electricity or drugs and he'll talk.
seriously, bz, you don't really think i'd sue to keep his ass out of that, do you? My whole beef is bragging about torturing them. You do it, and you STFU about it, period.
OK, just so I've got this straight, you're crying in the other thread (the one stickied) about how the government is a bunch of lying douchebags.
And in this thread, you're claiming that you support lying and think that's what they should be doing.
::)
-
OK, just so I've got this straight, you're crying in the other thread (the one stickied) about how the government is a bunch of lying douchebags.
And in this thread, you're claiming that you support lying and think that's what they should be doing.
::)
;D
Nice catch.
-
I think it should be US policy to not discuss ongoing terror investigations.
"the OBL situation in Abottabad is ongoing - we will have more information in the coming months".
Period.
Obama wanted to gain some political capital to push amnesty.
And keep in mind I called out the WH story from minute 1- way too hollywood and instant. And the lie about "we weren't watching what happened" when we now know there were heltmet cams in real time on every soldier in the place.
-
I think it should be US policy to not discuss ongoing terror investigations.
"the OBL situation in Abottabad is ongoing - we will have more information in the coming months".
Period.
Obama wanted to gain some political capital to push amnesty.
Nice dodge waffle, now tell us: Should the government lie or not?
And keep in mind I called out the WH story from minute 1- way too hollywood and instant. And the lie about "we weren't watching what happened" when we now know there were heltmet cams in real time on every soldier in the place.
Called out? You haven't called anything some twelve year old kid doesn't know. Who has said the government is not lying?
What the fuck did you expect? That they want to give away all our secrets?
You think they're telling the complete truth about how we found him? About the intel involved? About anything?
You get called out when you start making up your own bullshit to fill in the gaps.
-
I think Ron Paul respects the law as an absolute, that can have good and bad points but that is his deal. He believes that flouting the law leads to more such flouting.
-
Im on the fence on this right now, but read an interesteing comment on the yahoo page and would appreciate it if someone would like to express where they think this person is wrong. No need to get bent out of shape and answer in a derogatory fashion. i would like to hear an intelligent debate if anyone has it in them.
Ron was only arguing that there was a BETTER (more principled) way to do it than through extra-judicial killing and by violating Pakistani sovereignty.
What if the roles had been reversed? What if a fugitive wanted by Pakistan had holed himself up inside the US, with the help of some local sympathizers. If Pakistani commandos had been airdropped into our backyard in the middle of the night without warning, and shot the guy dead along with a few others, including several who were unarmed, while being fully prepared to kill any of our cops who might have responded to the commotion and rushed to the scene to intercept the armed intruders. What would our reactions have been? Would the fact that the fugitive was found hiding amongst us automatically mean that we were guilty of harboring him as a nation, and hence forfeiting our sovereignty? That the burden of proof is on our government - to show that it did not know he was here?
Paul brought up the case of KSM as an example of how the matter should have been handled. Those who argue that we can't trust Pakistan to help us hunt down terror suspects are conveniently ignoring this detail.
Paul believes in applying the Golden Rule to our foreign policies, the same attitude recommended by our founding fathers. If our country had stayed on that course during the last hundred years, we would not be a super power today, but we would also have considerably fewer enemies.
For better or worse, we've clearly chosen to head down a different path as a nation. Paul knows he is in the minority, but he is not afraid to speak his mind, even if he is roundly mocked by those who insist on twisting his words to feed their own prejudice.
also... werent some of the worst of the worst of ww2 arrested and brought to trial and ultimately exectuted? How is Ron wrong in suggesting applying the same methods in this situation?
-
Ron was only arguing that there was a BETTER (more principled) way to do it than through extra-judicial killing and by violating Pakistani sovereignty.
What if the roles had been reversed? What if a fugitive wanted by Pakistan had holed himself up inside the US, with the help of some local sympathizers. If Pakistani commandos had been airdropped into our backyard in the middle of the night without warning, and shot the guy dead along with a few others, including several who were unarmed, while being fully prepared to kill any of our cops who might have responded to the commotion and rushed to the scene to intercept the armed intruders. What would our reactions have been? Would the fact that the fugitive was found hiding amongst us automatically mean that we were guilty of harboring him as a nation, and hence forfeiting our sovereignty? That the burden of proof is on our government - to show that it did not know he was here?
Great point by Ron paul here.
-
OK, just so I've got this straight, you're crying in the other thread (the one stickied) about how the government is a bunch of lying douchebags.
And in this thread, you're claiming that you support lying and think that's what they should be doing.
::)
That's "24.0 Is My IQ," ladies and gentlemen!
-
This is why Ron Paul is going to have a difficult time getting elected:
Ron Paul Says He Would Have Opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act Ending Segregation
(Briefing Room) — Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn’t have voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he were a member of Congress at the time.
Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican who formally announced Friday that he would seek the presidency for a third time, said he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, and warned against turning strict libertarians into demagogues.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the ’64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
“Yeah, but I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws,” Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act “because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws.”
Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), faced criticism during his campaign for Senate last fall because of similar remarks he made, also during an appearance on MSNBC. Rand Paul had advanced a similar argument about property rights, and, under political pressure, issued a follow-up statement in which he voiced support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and would not support any efforts to repeal it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act
Can't get out of his own way. He needs to stick to hammering the economic points and shut up about pretty much everything else.
-
He's explained this issue a million times amd iit makes sense to everyone but the Racheal Maddows and Chris Mathews of the world, but they can piss off anyway.
-
He's explained this issue a million times amd iit makes sense to everyone but the Racheal Maddows and Chris Mathews of the world, but they can piss off anyway.
::)
-
::)
Great retort. Maybe moving pictures will help you understand his position, its not promoting racism, its promoting freedom and responsibility. I know you need someone to think for you and tell you how to live every moment of your life, you might actually love it.
-
Great retort. Maybe moving pictures will help you understand his position, its not promoting racism, its promoting freedomand responsibility. I know you need someone to think for you and tell you how to live every moment of your life, you might actually love it.
That wasn't a "retort" simpleton, just an acknowledgment of of how woefully ignorant you are.
I actually watched that interview LIVE, dipshit. Thanks for nothing. If you think Maddow and Matthews are the only people who think Paul Ron's view on the Civil Rights Act is asinine, you need your head examined.
-
That wasn't a "retort" simpleton, just an acknowledgment of of how woefully ignorant you are.
I actually watched that interview LIVE, dipshit. Thanks for nothing. If you think Maddow and Matthews are the only people who think Paul Ron's view on the Civil Rights Act is asinine, you need your head examined.
You couldnt even comprehend the sarcasm of a two word sentance and Im the simpleton? ::)
-
You couldnt even comprehend the sarcasm of a two word sentance and Im the simpleton? ::)
Yes. ;)
In addition, your spelling has been atrocious in your last two posts.
-
Yes. ;)
In addition, your spelling has been atrocious in your last two posts.
My fingers are too fat for the touch so sue me. :P
-
He's explained this issue a million times amd iit makes sense to everyone but the Racheal Maddows and Chris Mathews of the world, but they can piss off anyway.
It doesn't make sense at all.
Suggesting that he would vote against the civil rights act, and all the good it did, just because of the property rights issue is a childish oversimplification of the real world. You can't get everything you want, whenever you want it. Sometimes congresspeople have to look at the overall good a law does and accept some of the shit they just don't like. And it's a common theme with RP, his votes and, IMO, his overall ineffectiveness. Hell, how much of his shit even makes it through sub committee?
Also, the fundamental premise of assuming a market correction is just nonsense - especially in that day and age when there were even fewer minorities.
-
Ron Paul Doubles Down: We Should Have Let The Pakistanis Arrest Bin Laden
(Politico) — Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) refused on Sunday to back down from comments last week that the United States should have informed the Pakistani government that American officials knew where Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was hiding.
“Why are we having trouble with the [Pakistani] government, why are we stirring up a civil war in Pakistan? It’s because we’ve been bombing it,” Paul said on “Fox News Sunday.”
The libertarian Paul, who’s running again for the Republican presidential nomination, said his opposition to the U.S. mission to kill bin Laden demonstrates the principles of his non-interventionist foreign policy.
The Obama administration should have relied on the Pakistani government to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to U.S. authorities, Paul said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0511/Ron_Paul_Mission_against_bin_Laden_should_have_been_done_differently.html
Why does he have so much faith in the Islamist-infested Pakistani security forces?
-
This is where RP needs to get with the program if he wants to win.
WTF?
RP simply says: "we had credible intel on the pofs who killed 3,000 of our citizens, case closed"
This is where RP pisses me off. Its like Dude " STFU!!!! " We can win this if you shut your mouth on this.
-
It doesn't make sense at all.
Suggesting that he would vote against the civil rights act, and all the good it did, just because of the property rights issue is a childish oversimplification of the real world. You can't get everything you want, whenever you want it. Sometimes congresspeople have to look at the overall good a law does and accept some of the shit they just don't like. And it's a common theme with RP, his votes and, IMO, his overall ineffectiveness. Hell, how much of his shit even makes it through sub committee?
Also, the fundamental premise of assuming a market correction is just nonsense - especially in that day and age when there were even fewer minorities.
Agree.
-
Movements to end discrimination of many sorts don't usually start at the top and work their way down. The the types of movements that end discrimination start at a grassroots cultural level and work their way up. You guys always reference racism as if only blacks would experience it in Ron world, that is not the case. In a free society blacks could also refuse services to whites for example. As repugnant as racism or discrimination is, the underlying message her is still freedom to choose and the right to protect ones own property from government. People change through their own hands on experiences with eachother and I happen to believe that it's natural human evolution that will get rid of discrimination and not a bunch of guys in Washington who are usually last to feel the pulse of the nation. If citizens are free to refuse others the rest of society can refuse to use the services offered by the person(s) they find being offensive. That's the whole thing about freedom, it isn't always perfectly packaged, it's controversial and messy.
Are you guys suggesting that the only thing that stops American citizens frpm being discriminatory towards others because of a passed Act? I have a feeling the majority of citizens are naturally tolerant and understanding and through this we experince lasting change. Sorry I don't share the overwhelming cynism some of you hold towards everyday people.
-
Movements to end discrimination of many sorts don't usually start at the top and work their way down. The the types of movements that end discrimination start at a grassroots cultural level and work their way up. You guys always reference racism as if only blacks would experience it in Ron world, that is not the case. In a free society blacks could also refuse services to whites for example. As repugnant as racism or discrimination is, the underlying message her is still freedom to choose and the right to protect ones own property from government. People change through their own hands on experiences with eachother and I happen to believe that it's natural human evolution that will get rid of discrimination and not a bunch of guys in Washington who are usually last to feel the pulse of the nation. If citizens are free to refuse others the rest of society can refuse to use the services offered by the person(s) they find being offensive. That's the whole thing about freedom, it isn't always perfectly packaged, it's controversial and messy.
Are you guys suggesting that the only thing that stops American citizens frpm being discriminatory towards others because of a passed Act? I have a feeling the majority of citizens are naturally tolerant and understanding and through this we experince lasting change. Sorry I don't share the overwhelming cynism some of you hold towards everyday people.
I agree with this in part. You can't use legislation to change someone's heart. But that's not what laws are designed to do. Laws change or control behavior.
-
Laws change or control behavior.
Society in general naturally does that, not the laws.
Its the laws that change because of pressure from the people, not the other way around. There were laws that prohibited booze, but people overwhlmingly didnt obey them becasue they felt it was their right to put booze into their bodies. They beleived they had the freedom to choose and so the law changed. People, still get high off illegal substances, the law usually doesnt prevent someone from doing drugs, it's the lessons and examples learned from parents and teachers, etc... the drug laws are getting more and more lax everyday becasue people demand the freedom to put whatever they want in teir bodies. The overwhelming majority of people don't drink and drive becasue of a law as much I believe they dont drink and drive becasue there was a growing awarness of how it destroys lives. It was pressure from the victims/society that increased stiffer penalties. The people have a right to picket in front of a shop owners business if they feel that business is promoting values the rest of society deems not fit and in turn put financial pressure on that business to change it's values or risk going out of business.
-
Movements to end discrimination of many sorts don't usually start at the top and work their way down. The the types of movements that end discrimination start at a grassroots cultural level and work their way up. You guys always reference racism as if only blacks would experience it in Ron world, that is not the case. In a free society blacks could also refuse services to whites for example. As repugnant as racism or discrimination is, the underlying message her is still freedom to choose and the right to protect ones own property from government. People change through their own hands on experiences with eachother and I happen to believe that it's natural human evolution that will get rid of discrimination and not a bunch of guys in Washington who are usually last to feel the pulse of the nation. If citizens are free to refuse others the rest of society can refuse to use the services offered by the person(s) they find being offensive. That's the whole thing about freedom, it isn't always perfectly packaged, it's controversial and messy.
Are you guys suggesting that the only thing that stops American citizens frpm being discriminatory towards others because of a passed Act? I have a feeling the majority of citizens are naturally tolerant and understanding and through this we experince lasting change. Sorry I don't share the overwhelming cynism some of you hold towards everyday people.
Yeah, nice theoretical rant that has nothing to do with the issue.
The reality is that legalized discrimination was in effect, and was part of the law. The civil rights act effectively did away with a good number of them. Saying he would have left those discriminatory laws in tact just because he didn't like one goddamn provision of the act is sheer idiocy.
So you and the rest of RP troup can go on arguing whether the chicken or the egg came first, I'll vote for a politician that actually wants to deal with it the way it is, not the way it should be.
-
I'll vote for a politician that actually wants to deal with it the way it is, not the way it should be.
lol
ok.....
The reality is that legalized discrimination was in effect, and was part of the law.
So you are a wild animal, unable to understand and behave in a way that is humanly moral and just without (this particular) law I guess but don't paint me with the same brush. The beliefs of a few in power to alter/create laws don't make it a universal truth to everyone else. According to your arguement against freedom, the government should ignore your property rights and install cameras in your home to make sure no one is abusing anyone else. Doesn't the protection of everyone in your home that may not br able to defend themselves trump your private property rights in this instance?
-
lol
ok.....
Yes, thank you. RP has a lot of good ideas but a lot issues too. Letters of Marque? Afterall, Dog the bounty hunter would have done so much better a job than U.S. Navy Seals? Just nuts.
So you are a wild animal, unable to understand and behave in a way that is humanly moral and just without (this particular) law I guess but don't paint me with the same brush. The beliefs of a few in power to alter/create laws don't make it a universal truth to everyone else.
The law was not directed at you or I specifically. I don't need to paint any picture - history has already done that. We know exactly how minorities were treated back then and exactly how segregation worked out for them.
According to your arguement against freedom, the government should ignore your property rights and install cameras in your home to make sure no one is abusing anyone else. Doesn't the protection of everyone in your home that may not br able to defend themselves trump your private property rights in this instance?
Why don't we at least try to keep the discussion above the grade school level. ::)
-
Great retort. Maybe moving pictures will help you understand his position, its not promoting racism, its promoting freedom and responsibility. I know you need someone to think for you and tell you how to live every moment of your life, you might actually love it.
Haha, damn Chris matthews gets absolutely owned in this interview. He is such a piece of trash.
-
Society in general naturally does that, not the laws.
Society expresses its will by passing laws. We will never end certain mindsets. Some people will always have narrow minded viewpoints.
-
Why don't we at least try to keep the discussion above the grade school level. ::)
Really? How so? At least present an counter that incites some thought.
Although I did stray from the civil rights act theme in my example the overall defense of private property stays in tact. Your postion is that equal opportunity and equal protection under the law supercedes private property rights. I'm taking that same overall theme you're defending of protecting society from any abuse, by suggesting we should put cameras into every home to make sure no one is being abused. If you ignore the technical improbability of performing such a task and view it in a philosophical sense would you not be opposed to having the government facilitate such a move because it infringes on your private property?
-
Really? How so? At least present an counter that incites some thought.
Although I did stray from the civil rights act theme in my example the overall defense of private property stays in tact. Your postion is that equal opportunity and equal protection under the law supercedes private property rights. I'm taking that same overall theme you're defending of protecting society from any abuse, by suggesting we should put cameras into every home to make sure no one is being abused. If you ignore the technical improbability of performing such a task and view it in a philosophical sense would you not be opposed to having the government facilitate such a move because it infringes on your private property?
Very well argued. :)
-
Very well argued. :)
Thanks.
I understand this is a "hot topic" but only because people are only looking at the surface of it. Dig a little deeper and you'll understand how important freedom is and the responsibilities that come with it are. If we as a group aren't ready to accept that, then we deserve totalitarianism.
-
Thanks.
I understand this is a "hot topic" but only because people are only looking at the surface of it. Dig a little deeper and you'll understand how important freedom is and the responsibilities that come with it are. If we as a group aren't ready to accept that, then we deserve totalitarianism.
Society has determined that freedom has limitations. We have decided that if you run a business, you don't get to refuse to hire someone solely because they are Hispanic. If you own a restaurant, you cannot limit your clientele to Irish folks. If you run a hotel, you cannot limit your invitees to black people. These freedom limitations are good public policy. They didn't change anyone's mind about views on ethnicity (or any other protected class), but they did change how people operate in the marketplace.
There is nothing totalitarian about equal treatment.
-
Really? How so? At least present an counter that incites some thought.
Although I did stray from the civil rights act theme in my example the overall defense of private property stays in tact. Your postion is that equal opportunity and equal protection under the law supercedes private property rights. I'm taking that same overall theme you're defending of protecting society from any abuse, by suggesting we should put cameras into every home to make sure no one is being abused. If you ignore the technical improbability of performing such a task and view it in a philosophical sense would you not be opposed to having the government facilitate such a move because it infringes on your private property?
Incite thought, lol. About what? Rather than making an argument, you've made a ridiculous assertion that I support something that I don't. That is not my position, it's your overly fanatical interpretation.
I believe you should be able to do what you want in your own home and on your own property (provided you're not bothering others). Wanna keep out blacks, Mexicans, or whoever else, knock yourself out.
But when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society. And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights.
Just as public safety supercedes a private property owner's rights. You don't get to throw up a concert hall with an unsafe roof, let everybody in, and claim "private property rights" when the roof collapses on people. You don't get to install gas lines anyway you want without a government inspection, and on, and on. Don't like it, don't engage in commerce in this society.
And even if you're not engaged in commerce, private property ownership is not an absolute. There has to be some rules. Somebody can't buy the two plots next to my house and just start using it as a 7/11 or whatever the fuck they want.
Now, if you don't want to operate publically, and you want to do things privately - then discriminate all you want.
-
Incite thought, lol. About what? Rather than making an argument, you've made a ridiculous assertion that I support something that I don't. That is not my position, it's your overly fanatical interpretation.
I believe you should be able to do what you want in your own home and on your own property (provided you're not bothering others). Wanna keep out blacks, Mexicans, or whoever else, knock yourself out.
But when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society. And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights.
Just as public safety supercedes a private property owner's rights. You don't get to throw up a concert hall with an unsafe roof, let everybody in, and claim "private property rights" when the roof collapses on people. You don't get to install gas lines anyway you want without a government inspection, and on, and on. Don't like it, don't engage in commerce in this society.
And even if you're not engaged in commerce, private property ownership is not an absolute. There has to be some rules. Somebody can't buy the two plots next to my house and just start using it as a 7/11 or whatever the fuck they want.
Now, if you don't want to operate publically, and you want to do things privately - then discriminate all you want.
Exactly. Well said.
-
Incite thought, lol. About what? Rather than making an argument, you've made a ridiculous assertion that I support something that I don't. That is not my position, it's your overly fanatical interpretation.
I believe you should be able to do what you want in your own home and on your own property (provided you're not bothering others). Wanna keep out blacks, Mexicans, or whoever else, knock yourself out.
But when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society. And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights.
Just as public safety supercedes a private property owner's rights. You don't get to throw up a concert hall with an unsafe roof, let everybody in, and claim "private property rights" when the roof collapses on people. You don't get to install gas lines anyway you want without a government inspection, and on, and on. Don't like it, don't engage in commerce in this society.
And even if you're not engaged in commerce, private property ownership is not an absolute. There has to be some rules. Somebody can't buy the two plots next to my house and just start using it as a 7/11 or whatever the fuck they want.
Now, if you don't want to operate publically, and you want to do things privately - then discriminate all you want.
Well said, Skip. The naivety of the Ron Paul fanatics rivals the stupidity of the Obama drones.
-
Society has determined that freedom has limitations. We have decided that if you run a business, you don't get to refuse to hire someone solely because they are Hispanic. If you own a restaurant, you cannot limit your clientele to Irish folks. If you run a hotel, you cannot limit your invitees to black people. These freedom limitations are good public policy. They didn't change anyone's mind about views on ethnicity (or any other protected class), but they did change how people operate in the marketplace.
There is nothing totalitarian about equal treatment.
I actually think that's part of what turns people away from RP. His fans are incredulous that you could possibly disagree with one of his positions, and they seem to take the ridiculous extreme in a discussion. Camera's all of the house, lol. WTF?
-
I actually think that's part of what turns people away from RP. His fans are incredulous that you could possibly disagree with one of his positions, and they seem to take the ridiculous extreme in a discussion. Camera's all of the house, lol. WTF?
True. Some of his supporters are pretty fanatical.
-
I actually think that's part of what turns people away from RP. His fans are incredulous that you could possibly disagree with one of his positions, and they seem to take the ridiculous extreme in a discussion. Camera's all of the house, lol. WTF?
The fanatical and vocal nature of most Ron Paul fans is indeed pretty annoying. They're completely incapable of criticizing anything the guy says. Blind worship.
-
Well said, Skip. The naivety of the Ron Paul fanatics rivals the stupidity of the Obama drones.
Sometimes, they are crazy fanatical. I was in Lowes one time when a couple who had RP support shirts on were going ballistic because the signs were bilingual. I know they don't represent the majority of RP fans, but damn it was weird.
-
Sometimes, they are crazy fanatical. I was in Lowes one time when a couple who had RP support shirts on were going ballistic because the signs were bilingual. I know they don't represent the majority of RP fans, but damn it was weird.
Lots of crazy out there.
-
I actually think that's part of what turns people away from RP. His fans are incredulous that you could possibly disagree with one of his positions, and they seem to take the ridiculous extreme in a discussion. Camera's all of the house, lol. WTF?
Hardly. I mentioned several times that I don't agree with all of his beliefs.
I'm very open to differing but intellectual views (the only way I'll continue learning anything) and you offered an explanation this time that I can take something from, much different then your previous sarcastic remark and I appreciate that. I would definitely like to continue this later when I have more time.
-
But when you open your property to the public for commerce, you need to abide by certain rules of society. And at that point in time, equal opportunity and equal protection supercede your private property rights.
A private business is private property. If they sell a service or item to the public how are they no longer a private business or no longer private property?
If no public funds are used to run the business the government shouldnt have the authority to tell it who it can exclude and include. Any business should should be able to refuse services to anyone they see fit. Is it right? Thats for you to decide. How is it smart for a business to refuse to serve customers for something as aribitrary as race? The free market has a mechanismto put such businesses out of business. Compettitors that serve everyone eventually take away business from the offenders in this case.
Does this "equal protection" apply to other minorities, or just racial ones? Should hotel and restaurant owners be forced to accomodate neo-Nazis or incredibly obnoxious people? In the latter instance, the PC left forces restaurant owners NOT to abide by "equal protection"
Just as public safety supercedes a private property owner's rights. You don't get to throw up a concert hall with an unsafe roof, let everybody in, and claim "private property rights" when the roof collapses on people. You don't get to install gas lines anyway you want without a government inspection, and on, and on. Don't like it, don't engage in commerce in this society.
Like I said, with freedom comes responsibility, not a right to endanger others.
And even if you're not engaged in commerce, private property ownership is not an absolute. There has to be some rules. Somebody can't buy the two plots next to my house and just start using it as a 7/11 or whatever the fuck they want.
No one suggested you can do "whatever the fuck you want", you're the only one bringing that up.
-
Haha, damn Chris matthews gets absolutely owned in this interview. He is such a piece of trash.
Only in your own feeble mind did Chris Matthews get "absolutely owned" in that interview. ::)
-
Society has determined that freedom has limitations. We have decided that if you run a business, you don't get to refuse to hire someone solely because they are Hispanic. If you own a restaurant, you cannot limit your clientele to Irish folks. If you run a hotel, you cannot limit your invitees to black people.
It happens all the time. People are refused entry based on how they are dressed. Do you deny a restaurant or club a right to do that?
-
The fanatical and vocal nature of most Ron Paul fans is indeed pretty annoying. They're completely incapable of criticizing anything the guy says. Blind worship.
Im being fanatical? Gimmie a break. You know very well I have no problems accepting when I'm wrong about something and I surely don't follow blindly. You havent ever been vocal about something, does that make you fanatical?
-
It happens all the time. People are refused entry based on how they are dressed. Do you deny a restaurant or club a right to do that?
Yes a restaurant or club has the right to have a dress code . . . which has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.
-
People should have equal rights under the law, however I do not think people should be treated equally whatsoever. There is no such thing as equality and we are far from being equal.
-
Yes a restaurant or club has the right to have a dress code . . . which has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.
It could. Particular cultures and sub-cultures do dress accordingly and alike. IF I owned a club and put a sign out that says, "No one allowed with Pants on The Ground, Gold teeth, Doo-Rags, Necklaces of any kind, sports Jerseys, Oversized clothes" I think its clear whom we would be targeting. Isn`t it?
-
A little video on Equalty and why it does not make sense to treat people equally.
-
Or if I had a club and I had a sign that said, "No admittance if wearing a Burka, towel on your head or Turban". Or "Anyone wearing a cross of any kind or in possession of a bible will be considered Trespassing". See how that works.
-
A little more on equality. Would you honestly treat someone who is a member of Al-Quaeda equally to your mother, father, brother or sister? I surely wouldn`t.
-
Yes a restaurant or club has the right to have a dress code . . . which has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.
They have a right to have a dress code for their employees and the employees sign a contract that says they accept this but I'm not so sure that a night club can legally refuse a patron for wearing jeans if they want everyone to wear slacks. Im trying to find more info on that, if you do please let me know.
Either way, unless the guy wants to come in looking like a complete slob or naked, i don't see how one can be justified over the other because at it core its still discriminatory.
-
It could. Particular cultures and sub-cultures do dress accordingly and alike. IF I owned a club and put a sign out that says, "No one allowed with Pants on The Ground, Gold teeth, Doo-Rags, Necklaces of any kind, sports Jerseys, Oversized clothes" I think its clear whom we would be targeting. Isn`t it?
Nope.
-
They have a right to have a dress code for their employees but I'm not so sure that a night club can legally refuse a patron for wearing jeans if they want everyone to wear slacks. Im trying to find more info on that, if you do please let me know.
Either way, unless the guy wants to come in looking like a complete slob or naked, i don't see how one can be justified over the other becasue at it core its still discriminatory.
Sure they can. Nothing wrong with a "no jeans" dress code. Have you ever gone to a restaurant that required you to wear a coat and tie?
Discrimination isn't wrong. It's discrimination on the basis of a "protected class" that's wrong. Race/ethnicity = protected class. Dressing like a slob, or being naked (which itself is illegal) is completely different.
-
Nope.
Oh really? You don`t think sub-cultures and cultures have their own mannerisms, norms, values, dress codes etc...?
"No one allowed with Pants on The Ground, Gold teeth, Doo-Rags, Necklaces of any kind, sports Jerseys, Oversized clothes" If I posted that sign, you honestly don`t have a clue who I would be trying to target?
-
Sure they can. Nothing wrong with a "no jeans" dress code. Have you ever gone to a restaurant that required you to wear a coat and tie?
Discrimination isn't wrong. It's discrimination on the basis of a "protected class" that's wrong. Race/ethnicity = protected class. Dressing like a slob, or being naked (which itself is illegal) is completely different.
What "race" is someone if they are 1/16th Black?
-
Oh really? You don`t think sub-cultures and cultures have their own mannerisms, norms, values, dress codes etc...?
"No one allowed with Pants on The Ground, Gold teeth, Doo-Rags, Necklaces of any kind, sports Jerseys, Oversized clothes" If I posted that sign, you honestly don`t have a clue who I would be trying to target?
I think, with the exception of gangs, teenagers dress the same, depending on where they live, where they go to school, and what everyone else is wearing. Some groups will have the "emu" look. Some will dress like bums. Some will wear jerseys, etc.
Quit trying to make the subtle race argument. I am not impressed. ::)
-
What "race" is someone if they are 1/16th Black?
Whatever race they want to be.
-
Whatever race they want to be.
So you are in effect saying there is no such thing as racism because one can "be whatever race they want to be". So how do you judge someones race and then claim they were being discriminated against "racially" if you can`t even define what race they are since they are capable of being "whatever race they want to be" as you stated?
-
So you are in effect saying there is no such thing as racism because one can "be whatever race they want to be". So how do you judge someones race and then claim they were being discriminated against if you can`t even define what race they are?
lol. Really? Every race is a protected class.
-
lol. Really? Every race is a protected class.
How can you give specific protection to something you can`t define?
-
How can you give specific protection to something you can`t define?
Dude you gotta be kidding me. Everyone belongs to some racial classification, whether it's white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Hawaiian, "other," etc. This isn't even good message board material. lol
-
Dude you gotta be kidding me. Everyone belongs to some racial classification, whether it's white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Hawaiian, "other," etc. This isn't even good message board material. lol
You can`t tell me what race someone who is 1/16th black is and you certainly can`t tell me what race Barack Obama is. He is just as much white as he is anything, so how would we be able to determine that he was being discriminated against because he was black if he is equally white? What does race even mean?
-
Dude you gotta be kidding me. Everyone belongs to some racial classification, whether it's white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Hawaiian, "other," etc. This isn't even good message board material. lol
So now you are including place of birth and states, "Hawaii" as a race? So is Barack Obama`s race White, Black or Hawaiian? ???
-
You can`t tell me what race someone who is 1/16th black is and you certainly can`t tell me what race Barack Obama is. He is just as much white as he is anything, so how would we be able to determine that he was being discriminated against because he was black if he is equally white? What does race even mean?
Obama is whatever race he choses to be: white, black, mixed race, "other." You need to go Google race discrimination and figure out how it's determined.
I don't know how to answer your "what does race even mean" question. It's something that should be discussed in a (useless) philosophy class. :)
Although I will say that I think race-based statistics are meaningless given the dilution of races in this country.
-
So now you are including place of birth and states, "Hawaii" as a race? So is Barack Obama`s race White, Black or Hawaiian? ???
"Hawaiian" is an ethnic group, like Native American. Not everyone born in Hawaii is "Hawaiian." Obama is not Hawaiian.
-
"Hawaiian" is an ethnic group, like Native American. Not everyone born in Hawaii is "Hawaiian." Obama is not Hawaiian.
I would have thought the ethnic group would be "Pacific Islander".
-
I would have thought the ethnic group would be "Pacific Islander".
Nope. Pacific Islander includes Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan, Tahitian, etc.
-
"Hawaiian" is an ethnic group, like Native American. Not everyone born in Hawaii is "Hawaiian." Obama is not Hawaiian.
What do you mean he is not Hawaiian? He was born there. How is someone who was born in Hawaii not a Hawaiian? Native American? What is that? You do realize that many Indian tribes in the 1800s were lead by Multi-raced chiefs, such as William Weatherford of The Creeks (Muscogee) who was only 1/8th Indian and was bested by the great Andrew Jackson in the Creek War.
Again, why would he be considered a Native American Creek Indian if he was only 1/8th Creek?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Weatherford
-
Nope. Pacific Islander includes Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan, Tahitian, etc.
So now you are saying that Barack Obama is a Pacific Islander also because he is Hawaiian? ???
-
What race is this guy?
-
What do you mean he is not Hawaiian? He was born there. How is someone who was born in Hawaii not a Hawaiian? Native American? What is that? You do realize that many Indian tribes in the 1800s were lead by Multi-raced chiefs, such as William Weatherford of The Creeks (Muscogee) who was only 1/8th Indian and was bested by the great Andrew Jackson in the Creek War.
Again, why would he be considered a Native American Creek Indian if he was only 1/8th Creek?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Weatherford
He is not Hawaiian because "Hawaiian" is an ethnic group. He is "from" Hawaii. Use your friend Google, like you always do. I really can't explain it more than that. It's not complicated.
-
So now you are saying that Barack Obama is a Pacific Islander also because he is Hawaiian? ???
LOL!
-
What race is this guy?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/G._K._Butterfield%2C_official_photo_portrait_color.jpg/503px-G._K._Butterfield%2C_official_photo_portrait_color.jpg)
I have no idea. You can't always determine a person's race by looking at them.
-
I have no idea.
Why?
-
I have no idea. You can't always determine a person's race by looking at them.
He calls himself Black.
So how do you determine race and how would you prove discrimination if you cant define or determine what you intend to protect?
-
He calls himself Black.
So how do you determine race and how would you prove discrimination if you cant define or determine what you intend to protect?
Who is "you" in this context?
-
Who is "you" in this context?
I`m addressing you directly and anyone who believes that "race" or "ethnicity" should be a "protected class" from discrimination as you stated. I personally do not think there should be any protections whatsoever because its impossible, illogical and nonsensical to give special protection to something which cannot be defined.
-
He is not Hawaiian because "Hawaiian" is an ethnic group. He is "from" Hawaii. Use your friend Google, like you always do. I really can't explain it more than that. It's not complicated.
So what are you supposed to call someone who is born in Hawaii then?
-
I`m addressing you directly and anyone who believes that "race" or "ethnicity" should be a "protected class" from discrimination as you stated. I personally do not think there should be any protections whatsoever because its impossible, illogical and nonsensical to give special protection to something cannot be defined.
I determine race by either looking at someone and making an assumption or using whatever classification they want to go by. But I don't really care about race, other than when it comes to employment decisions.
Because I hire, manage, and fire employees, I have to be aware of "protected classes" so I don't get into trouble. I have interviewed a lot of people over the years. I cannot refuse to hire someone because they are a certain race, or if I think they're a certain race. You're the only one confused about it. I think it's funny. :)
-
So what are you supposed to call someone who is born in Hawaii then?
Whatever they want to be called.
Unless they want to attend Kamehameha Schools. :)
-
I determine race by either looking at someone and making an assumption or using whatever classification they want to go by. But I don't really care about race, other than when it comes to employment decisions.
Because I hire, manage, and fire employees, I have to be aware of "protected classes" so I don't get into trouble. I have interviewed a lot of people over the years. I cannot refuse to hire someone because they are a certain race, or if I think they're a certain race. You're the only one confused about it. I think it's funny. :)
A few posts ago you stated "You can't always determine a person's race by looking at them." And now you are saying that to determine race you must either look at someone and then make an assumption or just take someones word for it and use whatever they feel like calling themselves on any particular day. So anyone can be any race at any given time simply because they can choose to call themselves whatever race they want? Is that right? If thats the case, how can you offer any kind of protection or even define what a "protected class" is if anyone can bullshit whatever race they want to be?
It doesn`t make sense to give special protection to something you can`t define.
-
Whatever they want to be called.
Unless they want to attend Kamehameha Schools. :)
So race is all bullshit and its just left up to the individual to determine whatever race they want to be. Ok, I am now a black man. I know you can get free stuff for being black. Would you be opposed to me getting the free stuff because I am now a black man?
-
A few posts ago you stated "You can't always determine a person's race by looking at them." And now you are saying that to determine race you must either look at someone and then make an assumption or just take someones word for it and use whatever they feel like calling themselves on any particular day. So anyone can be any race at any given time simply because they can choose to call themselves whatever race they want? Is that right? If thats the case, how can you offer any kind of protection or even define what a "protected class" is if anyone can bullshit whatever race they want to be?
It doesn`t make sense to give special protection to something you can`t define.
No, you cannot always determine a person's race by looking at them.
Yes, I personally make an assumption about a person's race when I look at them.
Yes, I take someone's "word" for it when they choose to tell me whatever their race is (which I never ask anyway).
No, race doesn't matter to me, unless I'm making an employment decision, in which case I ensure my decisions are race neutral.
And . . . unsolicited . . . no, I will not keep repeatedly answering the same dumb question. :) If you want to know how some place like the Equal Employer Opportunity Commission handles race discrimination, use Google.
-
So race is all bullshit and its just left up to the individual to determine whatever race they want to be. Ok, I am now a black man. I know you can get free stuff for being black. Would you be opposed to me getting the free stuff because I am now a black man?
LOL! I don't give a rip what you call yourself. Personally, I would call you a close-minded, racist, probably homosexual white dude. But that's only if you were to ask. :D
I honestly don't care.
-
No, you cannot always determine a person's race by looking at them.
Yes, I personally make an assumption about a person's race when I look at them.
Yes, I take someone's "word" for it when they choose to tell me whatever their race is (which I never ask anyway).
No, race doesn't matter to me, unless I'm making an employment decision, in which case I ensure my decisions are race neutral.
And . . . unsolicited . . . no, I will not keep repeatedly answering the same dumb question. :) If you want to know how some place like the Equal Employer Opportunity Commission handles race discrimination, use Google.
How can you support special protection for something you have no way of defining other then your best guess or someone word? You had no clue that this guy was a black man afterall.
-
How can you support special protection for something you have no way of defining other then your best guess or someone word? You had no clue that this guy was a black man afterall.
Who cares? Other than you?
-
LOL! I don't give a rip what you call yourself. Personally, I would call you a close-minded, racist, probably homosexual white dude. But that's only if you were to ask. :D
I honestly don't care.
Why would I be racist if I don`t believe its possible to define? How could I be one? I hate people on a case by case basis equally I might add.
How can anyone be racist if you cannot even define what a race is? I am a black man today and tomorrow I will go back to being white. You said you define race either by how someone looks to you, or by what they say. So tonight, I am a black man. Do I need to go out and by a doo-rag or something now?
-
Why would I be racist if I don`t believe its possible to define? How could I be one? I hate people on a case by case basis equally I might add.
How can anyone be racist if you cannot even define what a race is? I am a black man today and tomorrow I will go back to being white. You said you define race either by how someone looks to you, or by what they say. So tonight, I am a black man. Do I need to go out and by a doo-rag or something now?
Do whatever it is that you do to make you happy.
Me? I am working while screwing around on the internet. :)
-
Who cares? Other than you?
This is what you posted: "discrimination on the basis of a "protected class" that's wrong. Race/ethnicity = protected class."
How can you give protection to something you can`t define which in this case is race and ethnicity?
-
Do whatever it is that you do to make you happy.
Me? I am working while screwing around on the internet. :)
How can I convey to the world that I am now a black man? How do light-skinned people do it? How does any "black" man complete their identity as to let the world know that they are black? Seriously.
-
This is what you posted: "discrimination on the basis of a "protected class" that's wrong. Race/ethnicity = protected class."
How can you give protection to something you can`t define which in this case is race and ethnicity?
And . . . unsolicited . . . no, I will not keep repeatedly answering the same dumb question. :) If you want to know how some place like the Equal Employer Opportunity Commission handles race discrimination, use Google.
-
How can I convey to the world that I am now a black man? How do light-skinned people do it? How does any "black" man complete their identity as to let the world know that they are black? Seriously.
Maybe watch some clips of Chris Rock? He's pretty good.
-
You said you go by only two criteria when determining someones race:
1. By their appearance and then you make an assumption using your own prejudices of how each race SHOULD look
or
2. By whatever the person tells you they are. (Today I am a Black Man in case your forgot)
Now, you are referring me to the Equal Employer Opportunity Commission? ??? Why? They can`t define race or ethnicity any better than you can and your attempts are VERY POOR.
Sorry, as a black man today, I am having difficulty wondering how you can support protecting something that is impossible to define.
-
Maybe watch some clips of Chris Rock? He's pretty good.
What characterizes him as a Black Man? How can you tell besides his appearance?
-
You have exceeded your quota of (the same) dumb questions for the evening. Try again tomorrow. :D
-
You have exceeded your quota of (the same) dumb questions for the evening. Try again tomorrow. :D
You have no answer to them.
-
You can`t tell me what race someone who is 1/16th black is and you certainly can`t tell me what race Barack Obama is. He is just as much white as he is anything, so how would we be able to determine that he was being discriminated against because he was black if he is equally white? What does race even mean?
O.K. You are an ignorant little troll. You don't know what race means? You can't define a "black" person or a "white" person? O Rly?
Black people are bigots when taken as a whole statistic demographically. So are Hispanics.
Burberrry is high quality especially when it comes to the Vintage pieces. For a while, the blacks and wiggers cheapened the brand (hip hop culture perhaps?) in the 90s but it has made a great recovery which I am glad to see.
Play that troll game with someone else. Don't make me have to look for more, you little troll. lol . . . .
-
O.K. You are an ignorant little troll. You don't know what race means? You can't define a "black" person or a "white" person? O Rly?
Play that troll game with someone else. Don't make me have to look for more, you little troll. lol . . . .
You have yet to define a black or a white person. YOU determine a persons race by using your own prejudices of what a certain race SHOULD look like and then using your own prejudices to make an assumption.
or
You simply take someones word for it and go with whatever race they wish to be called.
So tell me, within your self admitted parameters of judging race, how do you define which race is which? Just because I have got you in a position where you have absolutely no answer does not mean I am a "troll".
Afterall, you are the one who wants to give special protection to something you can`t define. Not me.
-
We can always count on TA to send what started as a good debate in this thread into the crapper. Well done.
-
This is why Ron Paul is going to have a difficult time getting elected:
Ron Paul Says He Would Have Opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act Ending Segregation
Im sure this is the general attitude throughout the country.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/sphd8z.png)
-
We can always count on TA to send what started as a good debate in this thread into the crapper. Well done.
Can you define race and if you are unable to do so, how can you give special protection to something you can`t define?
This should be an argument in favor for Poopsters, or do you not understand my points?
-
Can you define race and if you are unable to do so, how can you give special protection to something you can`t define?
This should be an argument in favor for Poopsters, or do you not understand my points?
(http://warriorwriters.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/troll.jpg?w=300&h=300)
-
(http://warriorwriters.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/troll.jpg?w=300&h=300)
I do understand that this is your way of dealing with a question/issue that you have absolutely no answer to.
-
I do understand that this is your way of dealing with a question/issue that you have absolutely no answer to.
You figgin troll. You claim there is no way to define race, yet you use racial classifications all the time. ::)
-
Oh snap. I fed the troll. :-[ :D
-
You figgin troll. You claim there is no way to define race, yet you use racial classifications all the time. ::)
Precisely, as I don`t think there is anything to "race" or "racial classifications" as they are not able to be defined whatsoever. I am not offended by using them nor should you be, but somehow you are despite the fact that you cannot define race in any way whatsoever.
-
Precisely, as I don`t think there is anything to "race" or "racial classifications" as they are not able to be defined whatsoever. I am not offended by using them nor should you be, but somehow you are despite the fact that you cannot define race in any way whatsoever.
You are the one with your panties in a bunch over racial classifications. I could care less about them.
You can't define race, yet you use racial classifications. ::) (See, I can repeatedly say the same thing too.)
-
You are the one with your panties in a bunch over racial classifications. I could care less about them.
You can't define race, yet you use racial classifications. ::) (See, I can repeatedly say the same thing too.)
So you can care less?
I know it's nitpicky, but the phrase is "I coudn't care less"... meaning you can not possibly care less about the subject.
It just messes with my head when I see it the way you wrote it.
-
So you can care less?
I know it's nitpicky, but the phrase is "I coudn't care less"... meaning you can not possibly care less about the subject.
It just messes with my head when I see it the way you wrote it.
Okaaaay. I have never used the phrase in formal writing, so I didn't know about the distinction. I'll try to remember. Thanks.
-
You are the one with your panties in a bunch over racial classifications. I could care less about them.
You can't define race, yet you use racial classifications. ::) (See, I can repeatedly say the same thing too.)
I like derogatory racial classifications as I find them amusing. I also like stereotypes and absolutely love watching people get all hurt and bent out of shape over them.
You have to stop and think, if they were so offended by them, there must be some truth in the jest as it were.
As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
There is nothing you can say about me that would EVER offend me.