Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on July 01, 2012, 09:07:28 AM
-
-
Biggest problem I've had with the Repubs throughout the entire debate. Got to have a viable alternative.
-
Biggest problem I've had with the Repubs throughout the entire debate. Got to have a viable alternative.
No, they don't.
The anger about ObamaCare has been there for over three years. They want ObamaCare GONE, and nowhere are the voters saying the Republicans can't get rid of it, unless they can replace it with something else.
Clearly, for all the flaws that healthcare had prior to ObamaCare, people would rather go back to that than have this garbage.
-
No, they don't.
The anger about ObamaCare has been there for over three years. They want ObamaCare GONE, and nowhere are the voters saying the Republicans can't get rid of it, unless they can replace it with something else.
Clearly, for all the flaws that healthcare had prior to ObamaCare, people would rather go back to that than have this garbage.
if you got your news from somewhere other than Glen Beck you'd know that many provision of the health care legislation are very popular and the Repubs KNOW they would have to have something to replace it if they were ever able to repeal it
they were already working on this before they found out it was going to be upheld
-
Who are these "30 million" and how many are illegals?
How many are young people who only need a cheap hospitalization plan and nothing else?
How many already qualify for medicade and are not signed up?
Just throwing around numbers without showing whether that number is legit and what is comprises of is pure emotional crappola from the hard leftists statist progressives seeking to ram through their radical agenda.
-
if you got your news from somewhere other than Glen Beck you'd know that many provision of the health care legislation are very popular and the Repubs KNOW they would have to have something to replace it if they were ever able to repeal it
they were already working on this before they found out it was going to be upheld
One, nobody is talking about Glenn Beck besides you.
Two, if ObamaCare were so popular, the Dems would've have been pummeled in 2010.
Three, the Dems haven't been able to sell this crap for three years straight. Citing a provision here and a provision there doesn't mean JACK, when it comes to throwing out all of this garbage.
Four, my point stands. The American people have stated for three years plus that ObamaCare SUCKS and they want it GONE. Nowhere is anyone saying, "It sucks but keep it in place, until you can replace it with something better".
Five, they certainly don't want the astronomical prices that come along with ObamaCare, tax hikes on them which Obama swore wouldn't happen. Our vets are a prime example. Obama is trying to sodomize them by hiking up their rates nearly FOURFOLD (while leaving the unionized DoD buddies of his untouched).
Obama has hardly mentioned his signature bill in his campaign, for good reason. It's a major millstone around his neck.
-
Four, my point stands. The American people have stated for three years plus that ObamaCare SUCKS and they want it GONE. Nowhere is anyone saying, "It sucks but keep it in place, until you can replace it with something better".
Yeah, I won't argue that. But prior to the debate and during the debate, pretty much everybody was in agreement that reform was necessary. Medical inflation is double, access, litigation, etc, etc.
There were some decent attempts, but I can't remember the Republicans (as a party) putting together a cohesive, uniform plan to deal with it.
We should get rid of Obamacare, but a replacement plan should be enacted immediately as well.
-
Yeah, I won't argue that. But prior to the debate and during the debate, pretty much everybody was in agreement that reform was necessary. Medical inflation is double, access, litigation, etc, etc.
There were some decent attempts, but I can't remember the Republicans (as a party) putting together a cohesive, uniform plan to deal with it.
We should get rid of Obamacare, but a replacement plan should be enacted immediately as well.
Enacting something immediately is how we got ObamaCare in the first place. As McConnell said, let the states handle some of these measures.
-
Biggest problem I've had with the Repubs throughout the entire debate. Got to have a viable alternative.
+1
-
No, they don't.
The anger about ObamaCare has been there for over three years. They want ObamaCare GONE, and nowhere are the voters saying the Republicans can't get rid of it, unless they can replace it with something else.
Clearly, for all the flaws that healthcare had prior to ObamaCare, people would rather go back to that than have this garbage.
Yes lets get back to insurance companies denying health care coverage for kids ::)
Where in your precious bible does it say that its okay to kill kids for profit?
-
Yes lets get back to insurance companies denying health care coverage for kids ::)
Where in your precious bible does it say that its okay to kill kids for profit?
More scare tactics and bullshit. You stupid fucks and communist rabble are cheering give up your freedom for the promise of what you think is free stuff.
-
Biggest problem I've had with the Repubs throughout the entire debate. Got to have a viable alternative.
Why?
-
More scare tactics and bullshit. You stupid fucks and communist rabble are cheering give up your freedom for the promise of what you think is free stuff.
What freedom? The freedom to get health care for our kids?
-
Why?
A viable alternative:
1. Offer High Deductible Catastrophic Care coupled w HSA
2. Tort Reform
3. Offer Insurance across state lines
Etc etc. Etc.
-
What freedom? The freedom to get health care for our kids?
You're free to try to get healthcare for your kids if you want. And I, as a company providing health insurance, should be free to tell you "sorry, not interested." Do you really think it's appropriate to compel me to provide health insurance for your kid?
-
A viable alternative:
1. Offer High Deductible Catastrophic Care coupled w HSA
2. Tort Reform
3. Offer Insurance across state lines
Etc etc. Etc.
That doesn't answer my question: why does the GOP have to offer an alternative to Obamacare?
-
That doesn't answer my question: why does the GOP have to offer an alternative to Obamacare?
Because in today's stupid emotionally driven society, the baby who cries the loudest gets his way. Its not right, but that is how it is, sadly.
-
You're free to try to get healthcare for your kids if you want. And I, as a company providing health insurance, should be free to tell you "sorry, not interested." Do you really think it's appropriate to compel me to provide health insurance for your kid?
If you are a company who is making billions on your trade i think you should
-
Its your own responsibility to get your own health insurance, not a political party. Depending on the govt for healthcare ::). Depend on yourselves. Repubs dont need a viable alt. No alternative is better. Pay for it yourself or die of whatever you have. Those 30 million should either figure out how to get better coverage or make their peace with this world and die. Do for yourselves.
Pay for bombings in the middle east= OK
Pay for medical care for you and your children= No-go
::)
-
Its your own responsibility to get your own health insurance, not a political party. Depending on the govt for healthcare ::). Depend on yourselves. Repubs dont need a viable alt. No alternative is better. Pay for it yourself or die of whatever you have. Those 30 million should either figure out how to get better coverage or make their peace with this world and die. Do for yourselves.
Well, I'll give you this, at least you're honest.
Should the kids die, too? I mean, is it their fault they don't have any insurance?
-
Well, I'll give you this, at least you're honest.
Should the kids die, too? I mean, is it their fault they don't have any insurance?
We already have programs for the poor at the fed and state level you ignorant twat.
-
We already have programs for the poor at the fed and state level you ignorant twat.
Yes, for the poor.
What if you're middle class and have a kid with a pre-existing condition or the insurance company cuts the kid off? Your scenario encourages people to go on welfare, but probably just so you can complain more. Your life's passion, and all.
I see you're in super tough mode again, anonymously calling people names on the internet.
-
Yes, for the poor.
What if you're middle class and have a kid with a pre-existing condition or the insurance company cuts the kid off? Your scenario encourages people to go on welfare, but probably just so you can complain more. Your life's passion, and all.
I see you're in super tough mode again, anonymously calling people names on the internet.
How many cases did that actually occur to where it justified upending the entire nation?
All emotion no facts for you leftist whiners.
-
Yes, for the poor.
What if you're middle class and have a kid with a pre-existing condition or the insurance company cuts the kid off? Your scenario encourages people to go on welfare, but probably just so you can complain more. Your life's passion, and all.
I see you're in super tough mode again, anonymously calling people names on the internet.
that's his and a few of his friends on here m.o. get on the keyboard and become superman
-
One, nobody is talking about Glenn Beck besides you.
Two, if ObamaCare were so popular, the Dems would've have been pummeled in 2010.
Three, the Dems haven't been able to sell this crap for three years straight. Citing a provision here and a provision there doesn't mean JACK, when it comes to throwing out all of this garbage.
Four, my point stands. The American people have stated for three years plus that ObamaCare SUCKS and they want it GONE. Nowhere is anyone saying, "It sucks but keep it in place, until you can replace it with something better".
Five, they certainly don't want the astronomical prices that come along with ObamaCare, tax hikes on them which Obama swore wouldn't happen. Our vets are a prime example. Obama is trying to sodomize them by hiking up their rates nearly FOURFOLD (while leaving the unionized DoD buddies of his untouched).
Obama has hardly mentioned his signature bill in his campaign, for good reason. It's a major millstone around his neck.
if the loss in 2010 for the Dems was due to the healthcare legislation then it was in large part by dopes like you who watched Glenn Beck and then got hysterical about death panels, "takeover" of health care, that it was unconstitutional and that Obama was going to throw you in jail if they didn't have insurance
The Repubs are assholes but they are smart enough to know that many parts of the legislation are popular with both Democrait and Republican voters (Scott Brown is using it to insure his adult daughter) and they know that if they just repealing it without having something to replace it to keep the parts they like they know they will only be hurting their own party. We all know that for Repubs it is "party before country" and they are not stupid enough (yes, I know hard to believe) to do something that would have immediate negative effects from their own constituents and thus themselves
-
They don't need an alternative to Obamacare, because most of the country doesn't want it. They do need to address some aspects of it, like preexisting conditions, etc. They also need to address costs, which Obamacare does not do.
-
They don't need an alternative to Obamacare, because most of the country doesn't want it. They do need to address some aspects of it, like preexisting conditions, etc. They also need to address costs, which Obamacare does not do.
Repubs will keep beating that drum until they finally realize no one is listening any more and then they will pretend they were all for it and even reclaim ownership of the individual mandate
-
You're free to try to get healthcare for your kids if you want. And I, as a company providing health insurance, should be free to tell you "sorry, not interested." Do you really think it's appropriate to compel me to provide health insurance for your kid?
Exactly, this entire debate is insane.
-
If you are a company who is making billions on your trade i think you should
I don't think the number of trailing zeroes in my profit should magically transform me into a slave who must provide service even when I do not want to.
-
I don't think the number of trailing zeroes in my profit should magically transform me into a slave who must provide service even when I do not want to.
LOL - he will never recover.
-
You're free to try to get healthcare for your kids if you want. And I, as a company providing health insurance, should be free to tell you "sorry, not interested." Do you really think it's appropriate to compel me to provide health insurance for your kid?
yes, it's definitely appropriate since we as a country create the laws and regulations that allow you to exist and do business in our country
And we as a country are also free to regulate your industry, especially when your industry provides a basic human need.
The first reform we should have done is to get rid of the McCarran–Ferguson Act
BTW - do you think any business be able to tell potential customer "sorry not interested"
-
And we as a country are also free to regulate your industry, especially when your industry provides a basic human need.
The first reform we should have done is to get rid of the McCarran–Ferguson Act
BTW - do you think any business be able to tell potential customer "sorry not interested"
Yes.
I did so today.
BTW - funny how you totalitarian tyrants and communists always scream like bitches about abortion laws "keep your laws off of my body" yet feel no sense of hypocrisy whatsoever when you do the same thing, but even worse.
-
Yes.
I did so today.
BTW - funny how you totalitarian tyrants and communists always scream like bitches about abortion laws "keep your laws off of my body" yet feel no sense of hypocrisy whatsoever when you do the same thing, but even worse.
so let's say I have a store or own an apartment buildeng and I don't want to sell/rent to blacks, jews, christians, etc... you believe we, as a country should have no right to regulate that business which exists within the market which we created and govern.
How about if I own a bank and don't want to lend to you soley because I don't like your political beliefs or that you're inthe military or you're greasy dago
the examples are endless
-
so let's say I have a store or own an apartment buildeng and I don't want to sell/rent to blacks, jews, christians, etc... you believe we, as a country should have no right to regulate that business which exists within the market which we created and govern.
How about if I own a bank and don't want to lend to you soley because I don't like your political beliefs or that you're inthe military or you're greasy dago
the examples are endless
So - new banks will pop up catering to me and my business. Happens all the time.
-
if the loss in 2010 for the Dems was due to the healthcare legislation then it was in large part by dopes like you who watched Glenn Beck and then got hysterical about death panels, "takeover" of health care, that it was unconstitutional and that Obama was going to throw you in jail if they didn't have insurance
The Repubs are assholes but they are smart enough to know that many parts of the legislation are popular with both Democrait and Republican voters (Scott Brown is using it to insure his adult daughter) and they know that if they just repealing it without having something to replace it to keep the parts they like they know they will only be hurting their own party. We all know that for Repubs it is "party before country" and they are not stupid enough (yes, I know hard to believe) to do something that would have immediate negative effects from their own constituents and thus themselves
In other words, you're parroting the usual liberal tripe of "Oh, we just didn't get our message out!!".
Never mind that you and the rest of the goofs, who clamor for this garbage have had YEARS to make your case.
Yapping about the "many parts" of ObamaCare that are popular is about as dumb as bragging about the players on a 3-13 team who made the Pro Bowl.
Only delusional kneepadders like you continue to push how great ObamaCare is, despite the American people telling you time and time agan that they don't want it, then act surprised when your party gets demolished during the midterms.
-
So - new banks will pop up catering to me and my business. Happens all the time.
yeah, new banks pop up all the time and you'd have no problem if those make believe banks had to charge you higher rates solely because you're unable to get competitive rates at the bank that doesn't like your politics of the color of your skin
-
In other words, you're parroting the usual liberal tripe of "Oh, we just didn't get our message out!!".
Never mind that you and the rest of the goofs, who clamor for this garbage have had YEARS to make your case.
Yapping about the "many parts" of ObamaCare that are popular is about as dumb as bragging about the players on a 3-13 team who made the Pro Bowl.
Only delusional kneepadders like you continue to push how great ObamaCare is, despite the American people telling you time and time agan that they don't want it, then act surprised when your party gets demolished during the midterms.
It wasn't that they didn't get their message out. It's that Repubs got out a message of lies, some of which you still believe. Lies like Death Panels, getting thrown in jail if you don't have insurance etc..
If you don't think many parts of Obamacare are in fact quite popular then stop wasting your time talking to me and get on the phone with your congress person or Senator and tell them to stop working on how to get the popular provisions reinstated (moot point at the present moment).
Again, as more of the legisltion goes into effect you're going to see even more people who like it
And again, you can't keep beating that drum that people don't like it even as the polls continue to improve
I honestly would expect nothing less from you being the tone death and brain dead fundie that you've repeatedly shown yourself to be
-
It wasn't that they didn't get their message out. It's that Repubs got out a message of lies, some of which you still believe. Lies like Death Panels, getting thrown in jail if you don't have insurance etc..
If you don't think many parts of Obamacare are in fact quite popular then stop wasting your time talking to me and get on the phone with your congress person or Senator and tell them to stop working on how to get the popular provisions reinstated (moot point at the present moment).
Again, as more of the legisltion goes into effect you're going to see even more people who like it
And again, you can't keep beating that drum that people don't like it even as the polls continue to improve
I honestly would expect nothing less from you being the tone death and brain dead fundie that you've repeatedly shown yourself to be
Watch and learn dipshit
-
It wasn't that they didn't get their message out. It's that Repubs got out a message of lies, some of which you still believe. Lies like Death Panels, getting thrown in jail if you don't have insurance etc..
If you don't think many parts of Obamacare are in fact quite popular then stop wasting your time talking to me and get on the phone with your congress person or Senator and tell them to stop working on how to get the popular provisions reinstated (moot point at the present moment).
Again, as more of the legisltion goes into effect you're going to see even more people who like it
You and the rest of the left-winged goofs have been saying that crap for OVER THREE YEARS. Yet, the reality is ObamaCare is as loathed now as it ever was. But don't take my word for it:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
The people told you and the Dems they don't want it. You and your fellow lefties kept talking that yap and then acted shocked when you got pummeled in 2010.
Three plus years, the mainstream media, and two of three cable networks all in the tank for Obama and the left. Yet, "we couldn't get our message out". ::) We said ObamaCare was a massive tax hike; WHAT A SURPRISE!! IT IS!! 21 new taxes, 12 of which hit those making under 250K, with 75% of the costs hitting those making under 120K.
BTW, genius, when the then-Speaker of the House (who helped create this monstrosity) says that it's fair to JAIL people for not buying into her insurance law, I take that VERY SERIOUSLY.
And again, you can't keep beating that drum that people don't like it even as the polls continue to improve
I honestly would expect nothing less from you being the tone death and brain dead fundie that you've repeatedly shown yourself to be
The only drums that got beaten were the Dems in 2010. And with twice as many of their seats on the line as those of the GOP in the Senate, the sequel is on deck.
-
yes, it's definitely appropriate since we as a country create the laws and regulations that allow you to exist and do business in our country
There's "laws" and "regulations" and then there's "laws" and "regulations". If the "laws" and "regulations" you are thinking about force me to become a yes-man, unable to run my business and make decisions then I simply won't do business in the country.
And we as a country are also free to regulate your industry, especially when your industry provides a basic human need.
Even if that's true, I don't think that "regulate" means "you must provide service." And if you think it does, I have two questions for you:
(a) Are you OK with forcing people who have medical degrees to practice medicine?
(b) Are you OK with forcing people to study medicine if there's not enough doctors to fill demand?
If you're OK with either of those, then I would suggest you think again about what your position really means.
BTW - do you think any business be able to tell potential customer "sorry not interested"
Absolutely. No private person or company should be compelled to do business with anyone.
-
Watch and learn dipshit
how many times have I told you I don't watch any video you post
-
so let's say I have a store or own an apartment buildeng and I don't want to sell/rent to blacks, jews, christians, etc... you believe we, as a country should have no right to regulate that business which exists within the market which we created and govern.
I believe that either I own the apartment building or I don't. If you want to force me to rent my building based on whatever standards you have, at least be honest about it and come and take it from me. Don't pretend I own the building if you're making decisions for me.
How about if I own a bank and don't want to lend to you soley because I don't like your political beliefs or that you're inthe military or you're greasy dago
A number of other banks will move to fill in that void. This isn't just theory. You can see examples across the economic spectrum, where a subset of the population doesn't receive services, and new business, catering specifically to them pop up.
-
how many times have I told you I don't watch any video you post
Fine - wallow in ignorance. Your choice.
-
There's "laws" and "regulations" and then there's "laws" and "regulations". If the "laws" and "regulations" you are thinking about force me to become a yes-man, unable to run my business and make decisions then I simply won't do business in the country.
that would be fine
I'm sure there are people who chose to close their businesses rather than being forced by the government to serve/sell to black people
they were easily replace and no one remmbers them any more
Even if that's true, I don't think that "regulate" means "you must provide service." And if you think it does, I have two questions for you:
(a) Are you OK with forcing people who have medical degrees to practice medicine?
(b) Are you OK with forcing people to study medicine if there's not enough doctors to fill demand?
If you're OK with either of those, then I would suggest you think again about what your position really means.
no and neither of those would or could ever happen though the government could offer incentives for people to go into the medical field
no one was ever forced to open a restaurant and serve black people
Absolutely. No private person or company should be compelled to do business with anyone.
well I got bad news for you - it happens every day in America
-
that would be fine
I'm sure there are people who chose to close their businesses rather than being forced by the government to serve/sell to black people
they were easily replace and no one remmbers them any more
Your true colors come out. You don't think people should be entitled to make their own decisions. You think people should be forced to do things at the point of a gun. There's a name for that belief.
no and neither of those would or could ever happen though the government could offer incentives for people to go into the medical field
So if nobody wants to become a doctor, you're OK with that? That's interesting, coming from the guy who argues that regulation for industries that provide a basic human need. What good would it be to force health insurance companies to provide insurance if there's no doctors?
no one was ever forced to open a restaurant and serve black people
But you'd be OK if a chef was forced to open a restaurant, because there's no other restaurant, and food is a basic human need?
well I got bad news for you - it happens every day in America
And what does that say about America?
-
You and the rest of the left-winged goofs have been saying that crap for OVER THREE YEARS. Yet, the reality is ObamaCare is as loathed now as it ever was. But don't take my word for it:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
The people told you and the Dems they don't want it. You and your fellow lefties kept talking that yap and then acted shocked when you got pummeled in 2010.
Three plus years, the mainstream media, and two of three cable networks all in the tank for Obama and the left. Yet, "we couldn't get our message out". ::) We said ObamaCare was a massive tax hike; WHAT A SURPRISE!! IT IS!! 21 new taxes, 12 of which hit those making under 250K, with 75% of the costs hitting those making under 120K.
BTW, genius, when the then-Speaker of the House (who helped create this monstrosity) says that it's fair to JAIL people for not buying into her insurance law, I take that VERY SERIOUSLY.
The only drums that got beaten were the Dems in 2010. And with twice as many of their seats on the line as those of the GOP in the Senate, the sequel is on deck.
it's impossible for you to be jailed under this law
I've shown you those facts yet you choose to believe a comment made by Pelosi in 2009 that does not exists in the law that was passed in 2010. It's bizarro that you can be show ironclad proof that your belief is wrong and yet you still cling to it
I'm actually happy that you're still pissing yourself over fear that Obama might throw you in jail.
It makes me laugh
As for it's popularity we can play dueling polls but it's pointless
As I've said, as more and more people start actually receving the benefits and morons such as yourself finally figure out that there really aren't any death panels and Obama isn't going to throw you in jail the popularity will increase
In the meantime I hope that Repubs decided to spend lot's of dollars on the same failed strategy
-
I believe that either I own the apartment building or I don't. If you want to force me to rent my building based on whatever standards you have, at least be honest about it and come and take it from me. Don't pretend I own the building if you're making decisions for me.
I assume you're aware that laws do exist that prevent you from discriminating in the business of renting units in your building
A number of other banks will move to fill in that void. This isn't just theory. You can see examples across the economic spectrum, where a subset of the population doesn't receive services, and new business, catering specifically to them pop up.
and you're aware that the bank that magically "pops up" to fill that void would be subject to the exact sames laws that were violated by the first bank. And I'm sure you would have no problem if this hypothetical 2nd bank charged you a much higher rate of interest than the market rate simply becuase you can't get access to the market rates at the first bank who denies you not for credit worthiness but simply because of the color of your skin, religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc..
-
Your true colors come out. You don't think people should be entitled to make their own decisions. You think people should be forced to do things at the point of a gun. There's a name for that belief.
So if nobody wants to become a doctor, you're OK with that? That's interesting, coming from the guy who argues that regulation for industries that provide a basic human need. What good would it be to force health insurance companies to provide insurance if there's no doctors?
But you'd be OK if a chef was forced to open a restaurant, because there's no other restaurant, and food is a basic human need?
And what does that say about America?
no one in this country was ever forced to open a business
where are you getting these ideas
are you aware there are an array of laws on the books that regulate how businesses MUST interact with potential customers. You act like you're unaware of the ECOA or the slew of laws and executive orders on access to housing
here's a short list
Fair Housing Act
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Section 504 prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
Section 109 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or religion in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from HUD's Community Development and Block Grant Program.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Title II prohibits discrimination based on disability in programs, services, and activities provided or made available by public entities. HUD enforces Title II when it relates to state and local public housing, housing assistance and housing referrals.
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
The Architectural Barriers Act requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, altered, or leased with certain federal funds after September 1969 must be accessible to and useable by handicapped persons.
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
The Age Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.
Presidential Executive Orders Related to Fair Housing:
Executive Order 11063
Executive Order 11063 prohibits discrimination in the sale, leasing, rental, or other disposition of properties and facilities owned or operated by the federal government or provided with federal funds.
Executive Order 11246
Executive Order 11246, as amended, bars discrimination in federal employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Executive Order 12892
Executive Order 12892, as amended, requires federal agencies to affirmatively further fair housing in their programs and activities, and provides that the Secretary of HUD will be responsible for coordinating the effort. The Order also establishes the President's Fair Housing Council, which will be chaired by the Secretary of HUD.
Executive Order 12898
Executive Order 12898 requires that each federal agency conduct its program, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that does not exclude persons based on race, color, or national origin.
Executive Order 13166
Executive Order 13166 eliminates, to the extent possible, limited English proficiency as a barrier to full and meaningful participation by beneficiaries in all federally-assisted and federally conducted programs and activities.
Executive Order 13217
Executive Order 13217 requires federal agencies to evaluate their policies and programs to determine if any can be revised or modified to improve the availability of community-based living arrangements for persons with disabilities.
-
it's impossible for you to be jailed under this law
I've shown you those facts yet you choose to believe a comment made by Pelosi in 2009 that does not exists in the law that was passed in 2010. It's bizarro that you can be show ironclad proof that your belief is wrong and yet you still cling to it
I'm actually happy that you're still pissing yourself over fear that Obama might throw you in jail.
It makes me laugh
As for it's popularity we can play dueling polls but it's pointless
As I've said, as more and more people start actually receving the benefits and morons such as yourself finally figure out that there really aren't any death panels and Obama isn't going to throw you in jail the popularity will increase
In the meantime I hope that Repubs decided to spend lot's of dollars on the same failed strategy
You can't play "dueling polls" with me, because the one "poll" that squashes your tripe DEAD in its tracks is the 2010 midterms.
THREE YEARS, genius. ObamaCare still sucks and people want it gone.
But, listening to your twisted logic, "I know you've hated it for over three years. But, but, but give it time. You'll like it!!".
Not to mention, all the BS about Obama not taxing the middle class went up and smoke. But, of course, you're too busy kneepadding to deal with that little detail.
-
Its your own responsibility to get your own health insurance, not a political party. Depending on the govt for healthcare ::). Depend on yourselves. Repubs dont need a viable alt. No alternative is better. Pay for it yourself or die of whatever you have. Those 30 million should either figure out how to get better coverage or make their peace with this world and die. Do for yourselves.
I would think that may be true if it were an equal playing field. But insurance companies are heavily regulated, dictated where they may and may not offer services, more and more physicians consolidating, med schools holding graduation rates low to keep demand high.
There's no true competition and medical inflation keeps outpacing everything else.
To say the Repubs shouldn't have an alternative is to say there's nothing wrong with the system. And I think there's clearly plenty wrong that Republicans can fix with a viable alternative.
-
no one in this country was ever forced to open a business
where are you getting these ideas
So if nobody wants to practice medicine, you're OK with that?
are you aware there are an array of laws on the books that regulate how businesses MUST interact with potential customers. You act like you're unaware of the ECOA or the slew of laws and executive orders on access to housing
I'm very much aware. I just don't think such laws are proper.
Fair Housing Act
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).
I don't think it's appropriate for the Government to tell property owners what criteria they can use in deciding whether to rent or sell property to someone else, and financial institutions what criteria to use in financing such property.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Section 504 prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
Section 109 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or religion in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from HUD's Community Development and Block Grant Program.
Those are fine by me - the Government can dictate terms to those who choose to voluntarily receive federal financial assistance.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Title II prohibits discrimination based on disability in programs, services, and activities provided or made available by public entities. HUD enforces Title II when it relates to state and local public housing, housing assistance and housing referrals.
I disagree with the concept of "public housing" but since it's there, I have no problem with this either. Governments can use whatever criteria they want to use in making decisions about their properties.
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
The Architectural Barriers Act requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, altered, or leased with certain federal funds after September 1969 must be accessible to and useable by handicapped persons.
That's fine - the Government can require facilities that designed, constructed, altered, or leased with certain federal funds to meet whatever requirements they want.
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
The Age Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
If the government wants to set rules for programs it finances and which receive these funds voluntarily, that's fine by me.
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.
If the government wants to set rules for programs it finances and which receive these funds voluntarily, that's fine by me. I'm getting tired of repeating myself here...
Presidential Executive Orders Related to Fair Housing:
Executive Order 11063
Executive Order 11063 prohibits discrimination in the sale, leasing, rental, or other disposition of properties and facilities owned or operated by the federal government or provided with federal funds.
What the Government wants to decree about properties and facilities owned or operated by the federal government or provided with federal funds is fine.
Executive Order 11246
Executive Order 11246, as amended, bars discrimination in federal employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Who the Government chooses to hire, and what criteria it uses to reace that decision is the Government's business.
Executive Order 12892
Executive Order 12892, as amended, requires federal agencies to affirmatively further fair housing in their programs and activities, and provides that the Secretary of HUD will be responsible for coordinating the effort. The Order also establishes the President's Fair Housing Council, which will be chaired by the Secretary of HUD.
Executive Order 13166
Executive Order 13166 eliminates, to the extent possible, limited English proficiency as a barrier to full and meaningful participation by beneficiaries in all federally-assisted and federally conducted programs and activities.
The Government can impose new or eliminate existing barriers for participating in federally-assisted and federally conducted programs and activities. That's fine.
-
I assume you're aware that laws do exist that prevent you from discriminating in the business of renting units in your building
I am, but I don't think such laws are proper, anymore than I think a law that says "you must rent this unit for 40% below market price" or a law that says "you must discriminate when renting this unit" is proper.
and you're aware that the bank that magically "pops up" to fill that void would be subject to the exact sames laws that were violated by the first bank.
I don't think there should be laws that would require the first bank to loan, or mandate the criteria to use in loaning money, so the first bank in this hypothetical wouldn't be breaking any laws. Of course, outside the hypothetical, in reality the laws are what they are, and banks (and others) ought to comply with the law, but that doesn't mean they (or I) should have to agree with such laws.
And I'm sure you would have no problem if this hypothetical 2nd bank charged you a much higher rate of interest than the market rate simply becuase you can't get access to the market rates at the first bank who denies you not for credit worthiness but simply because of the color of your skin, religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc..
No, I would have absolutely no problem with a bank that did any of those things, although I personally wouldn't do business with such an institution (and I doubt many people would).
I don't think it's my (or the Government's) place to tell the bank how it should use its funds anymore than I think it's the Government's place to tell me that I must give 10% of my income to a charity or my next door neighbor, who's not as well off as I am.
-
avxo - this board (the actual website) act weird when I try to "reply" to you longer posts and I don't have much time either.
I did read your posts and it seems you are aware of all the various laws (good sign) and just don't like them (your perogative)
I am not worried that "no one" will want to become a doctor anymore just like I'm not worried that the government is going to force anyone to be a doctor or start a business, etc..
Given that We (this country and it's people) create the rules at which businesses are allowed to function within our country I have zero problem with the various laws that are in place to protect consumers and prevent discrimination
If someone wants to own a restaurant or real estate or some other type of business AND discriminate they are perfectly free to do so...... just not in this country
-
I did read your posts and it seems you are aware of all the various laws (good sign) and just don't like them (your perogative)
I just don't believe that we should pass laws that control people's property: after all, you either own property, or you don't. I also don't believe that you can legislate morality, or that you actually achieve anything by passing laws that say, for example, "you must not consider factors X, Y and Z when making a decision" because ultimately, people will still consider them, they just will try to hide it and use reason P, Q and R as pretense.
Besides, you're missing two very important points. Let's talk about laws that prevent landlords from considering race in renting out their property. First, if race were, actually, irrelevant and a landlord could draw no conclusions from the race of a potential renter why would the landlord want to consider that factor anyway? After all, he's only really interested in factors that tell him things like "how likely is this person to pay his rent on time?" and "how likely is this person to leave the unit in a good condition when the lease is up?" And second, why would you want a law that essentially masks the fact that someone is a racist by preventing him from showing his true colors?
I am not worried that "no one" will want to become a doctor anymore just like I'm not worried that the government is going to force anyone to be a doctor or start a business, etc..
But, apparently, you're very concerned that people might not be able to get a house because of their race, their gender, the sexual orientation, their religions beliefs, and so on... So concerned, in fact, that you think laws are needed to prevent this! ???
Given that We (this country and it's people) create the rules at which businesses are allowed to function within our country I have zero problem with the various laws that are in place to protect consumers and prevent discrimination
Unlike you, I believe that (with very, very few exceptions) people can protect themselves and that they don't need a nanny-cum-bodyguard protecting them. And unlike you, I believe that the best way to end discrimination is not to force it to hide, but to expose it, and let it be seen in all its "glory."
If someone wants to own a restaurant or real estate or some other type of business AND discriminate they are perfectly free to do so...... just not in this country
They're perfectly free to do so anyways. They just will discriminate in subtle ways. But that's fine by you - out of sight, out of mind, right?
-
I just don't believe that we should pass laws that control people's property: after all, you either own property, or you don't. I also don't believe that you can legislate morality, or that you actually achieve anything by passing laws that say, for example, "you must not consider factors X, Y and Z when making a decision" because ultimately, people will still consider them, they just will try to hide it and use reason P, Q and R as pretense.
Besides, you're missing two very important points. Let's talk about laws that prevent landlords from considering race in renting out their property. First, if race were, actually, irrelevant and a landlord could draw no conclusions from the race of a potential renter why would the landlord want to consider that factor anyway? After all, he's only really interested in factors that tell him things like "how likely is this person to pay his rent on time?" and "how likely is this person to leave the unit in a good condition when the lease is up?" And second, why would you want a law that essentially masks the fact that someone is a racist by preventing him from showing his true colors?
But, apparently, you're very concerned that people might not be able to get a house because of their race, their gender, the sexual orientation, their religions beliefs, and so on... So concerned, in fact, that you think laws are needed to prevent this! ???
Unlike you, I believe that (with very, very few exceptions) people can protect themselves and that they don't need a nanny-cum-bodyguard protecting them. And unlike you, I believe that the best way to end discrimination is not to force it to hide, but to expose it, and let it be seen in all its "glory."
They're perfectly free to do so anyways. They just will discriminate in subtle ways. But that's fine by you - out of sight, out of mind, right?
do you live in the US ?
-
do you live in the US ?
I do.
-
I do.
What's your exact location?
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
What's your exact location?
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sin City, about 5 minutes from the Strip.
-
Sin City, about 5 minutes from the Strip.
well I've got some bad news for you then
all those laws you don't believe we should be passing that place limits on what you can do with your property and your business have been in place for years and there is zero political will or public outcry to change or repeal them.
-
well I've got some bad news for you then
all those laws you don't believe we should be passing that place limits on what you can do with your property and your business have been in place for years and there is zero political will or public outcry to change or repeal them.
Right, so many of these laws have been around for a long time. And there's no public outcry or move to change them.
So?
What's the point of this post?
-
Right, so many of these laws have been around for a long time. And there's no public outcry or move to change them.
So?
What's the point of this post?
It means you're going to jail for a long, long time.
-
It means you're going to jail for a long, long time.
Damn, that will interfere with my getbigging and, to a less extent, with my training. At least my status from here means I will basically be running the show and the warden will report to me. Free strawberry smoothes for everyone!
-
Right, so many of these laws have been around for a long time. And there's no public outcry or move to change them.
So?
What's the point of this post?
What's the point of long posts bellyaching about laws that corrected past abuses and continue to work andd for which virtually no one has a problem with?
-
What's the point of long posts bellyaching about laws that corrected past abuses and continue to work andd for which virtually no one has a problem with?
The point is that I don't believe the law is a tool to remedy and correct past abuses, anymore than I believe that it's a tool to enforce morality and to scrub clean the black, black hearts of racists. As for whether virtually no one has a problem with laws I don't like, why should that be any concern of mine?
-
The point is that I don't believe the law is a tool to remedy and correct past abuses, anymore than I believe that it's a tool to enforce morality and to scrub clean the black, black hearts of racists. As for whether virtually no one has a problem with laws I don't like, why should that be any concern of mine?
Great job ignoring the fact that the Fair Housing Laws or the ECOA (to give two examples) actuallu have corrected past abuses and continue to be effective at preventng current abuse
They are not being used to enforce morality. No racist is going to change what they belive just because they are forced to comply with a law
-
Great job ignoring the fact that the Fair Housing Laws or the ECOA (to give two examples) actuallu have corrected past abuses and continue to be effective at preventng current abuse
Do you have any evidence that they're effective at preventing current abuse?
And, the more important question, does this "abuse" (I don't know how the word can possibly apply in this context) need preventing?
Do you really think that racism is so rampant that absent a law blacks, gays, pastafarians and other such groups would be unable to find housing? REALLY?
If someone is a racist and doesn't want to rent an apartment to a black man, who is really being hurt, except the racist who loses the income?
They are not being used to enforce morality. No racist is going to change what they belive just because they are forced to comply with a law
Except they're not really forced to comply anyways. They'll just find a pretense that allows them to justify their action: they'll go against the spirit of the law but live up to the words.
The racist property owner who you're so afraid of won't grudgingly rent to a black man. He'll claim that the apartment is off the market or some such.
The difference is that without the law everyone will know the guy is a racist.
But as I said, you prefer "out of sight, out of mind"
-
Do you have any evidence that they're effective at preventing current abuse?
And, the more important question, does this "abuse" (I don't know how the word can possibly apply in this context) need preventing?
Do you really think that racism is so rampant that absent a law blacks, gays, pastafarians and other such groups would be unable to find housing? REALLY?
If someone is a racist and doesn't want to rent an apartment to a black man, who is really being hurt, except the racist who loses the income?
Except they're not really forced to comply anyways. They'll just find a pretense that allows them to justify their action: they'll go against the spirit of the law but live up to the words.
The racist property owner who you're so afraid of won't grudgingly rent to a black man. He'll claim that the apartment is off the market or some such.
The difference is that without the law everyone will know the guy is a racist.
But as I said, you prefer "out of sight, out of mind"
there are plenty of examples of past and current violation of the ECOA and the same goes for housing
Yes, I absoluely do think this type of abuse needs to be prevented and when it does happen there should be penalties
You can find many such recent examples with a simple search. Countrywide/BofA was fined last year for ECOA violations
I also don't take your disbelief that it happens seriously since you've already said that you would engage in such discrimination if you could. If you would do it why would you be suprised that others and since you think it's perfectly acceptable anyway why he pretend to question whether it happens or not?
-
I also don't take your disbelief that it happens seriously since you've already said that you would engage in such discrimination if you could. If you would do it why would you be suprised that others and since you think it's perfectly acceptable anyway why he pretend to question whether it happens or not?
I did? Where? I said that I think property owners should be able to use whatever criteria they want in deciding whether to rent their property. That's hardly discrimination and you should avoid calling people racists, even tangentially.
-
I did? Where? I said that I think property owners should be able to use whatever criteria they want in deciding whether to rent their property. That's hardly discrimination and you should avoid calling people racists, even tangentially.
sorry, I thought you said what you basically repeated here, that property owners should be able to use whatever criteria they want, which I assumes includes race.
Would you yourself personally use race a a criteria when looking at potential tenants?
-
sorry, I thought you said what you basically repeated here, that property owners should be able to use whatever criteria they want, which I assumes includes race.
Would you yourself personally use race a a criteria when looking at potential tenants?
I do think they should be able to, yes. But I don't think that race is a rational criterion to use, so I wouldn't use it.
If people want to use stupid criteria to make decisions, I say let them.
-
I do think they should be able to, yes. But I don't think that race is a rational criterion to use, so I wouldn't use it.
If people want to use stupid criteria to make decisions, I say let them.
and that's the entire point of these types of laws so that they aren't allowed to use what we as a nation have deemed to be prejudicial and as you've pointed out, irrelevent and stupid criteria
In regard the the ECOA there are recent examples of non-whites being steered toward higher interest rate loans even though they were qualified (via credit scores and income) for better rates. So the banks "stupid" behaviour had a profit motive and cost these borrowers more money too
-
and that's the entire point of these types of laws so that they aren't allowed to use what we as a nation have deemed to be prejudicial and as you've pointed out, irrelevent and stupid criteria.
Why should we, as a nation, tell people what factors they can and cannot use? Why should we, as a nation, substitute our collective judgement for the judgment of an individual? That we don't like the decisions an individual might make isn't a justification.
Not to mention, as I said before, that people who want to use these factors can, and will, find ways around the law. The racist landlord might not say "sorry, I don't rent to black people" but he might say "someone already put down a deposit" or "I decided not to rent the place at this time" as soon as he sees the prospective tenant is black. How will you prevent this action by law?
As I asked before, if the criteria is irrelevant and stupid, why would you want to prohibit people from using them? The only people who will use such criteria are people who are stupid and there's nothing you can do for people who are stupid.
All these laws really achieve is to allow those who are racist to continue to be racist, but to just hide behind thinly veiled excuses. You, in essence, believe that a thin coat of paint can cover the ugliness of racism and that once we can't see it, it will no longer be there.
In regard the the ECOA there are recent examples of non-whites being steered toward higher interest rate loans even though they were qualified (via credit scores and income) for better rates. So the banks "stupid" behaviour had a profit motive and cost these borrowers more money too
I'm not familiar with the case, but I would hesitate to call the behavior outright stupid. Banks don't have any particular reason to be racist - money is money. They base their decision on cold, hard facts. You may not think that's the case, but trust me. Banks distill everything down to numbers and the decisions aren't made by people, they're made by computers that crunch those numbers, and there's nothing inherently racist in that.
And if some bank is racist, then what will that bank achieve? It will just reduce its potential customer base, and allow other banks that aren't racist, to take those customers away, by offering truly competitive rates that accurately reflect the credit risk that any particular individual poses.
I'll go even further: Let's assume, arguendo, that a bank crunches the numbers on its existing loan portfolio and sees that people with personal loans who are white are more likely to pay their loan off on time and that people who are black are less likely to pay their loan off on time. Do you really think that the bank shouldn't be allowed to take this information into account when deciding whether to grant a loan and what the interest rate for said loan should be? Do you really this would be "racist" behavior? Would it be "racist" behavior if it was the other way around? What, exactly, about it is racist?
So I'll repeat what I said before: I believe that people should be allowed to use whatever criteria they want in making their decisions - any decisions - and I don't believe it's your place to substitute your own judgement for the judgement of others and to tell them how to think and what they may consider, and frankly every man that you try to do this to should spit in your face and call you exactly what you are: a tyrant.
-
Why should we, as a nation, tell people what factors they can and cannot use? Why should we, as a nation, substitute our collective judgement for the judgment of an individual? That we don't like the decisions an individual might make isn't a justification.
Not to mention, as I said before, that people who want to use these factors can, and will, find ways around the law. The racist landlord might not say "sorry, I don't rent to black people" but he might say "someone already put down a deposit" or "I decided not to rent the place at this time" as soon as he sees the prospective tenant is black. How will you prevent this action by law?
As I asked before, if the criteria is irrelevant and stupid, why would you want to prohibit people from using them? The only people who will use such criteria are people who are stupid and there's nothing you can do for people who are stupid.
All these laws really achieve is to allow those who are racist to continue to be racist, but to just hide behind thinly veiled excuses. You, in essence, believe that a thin coat of paint can cover the ugliness of racism and that once we can't see it, it will no longer be there.
I'm not familiar with the case, but I would hesitate to call the behavior outright stupid. Banks don't have any particular reason to be racist - money is money. They base their decision on cold, hard facts. You may not think that's the case, but trust me. Banks distill everything down to numbers and the decisions aren't made by people, they're made by computers that crunch those numbers, and there's nothing inherently racist in that.
And if some bank is racist, then what will that bank achieve? It will just reduce its potential customer base, and allow other banks that aren't racist, to take those customers away, by offering truly competitive rates that accurately reflect the credit risk that any particular individual poses.
I'll go even further: Let's assume, arguendo, that a bank crunches the numbers on its existing loan portfolio and sees that people with personal loans who are white are more likely to pay their loan off on time and that people who are black are less likely to pay their loan off on time. Do you really think that the bank shouldn't be allowed to take this information into account when deciding whether to grant a loan and what the interest rate for said loan should be? Do you really this would be "racist" behavior? Would it be "racist" behavior if it was the other way around? What, exactly, about it is racist?
So I'll repeat what I said before: I believe that people should be allowed to use whatever criteria they want in making their decisions - any decisions - and I don't believe it's your place to substitute your own judgement for the judgement of others and to tell them how to think and what they may consider, and frankly every man that you try to do this to should spit in your face and call you exactly what you are: a tyrant.
I'm not sure if you're really serious or just playing devils advocate
first of all it's not "my judgement" that is being used. It's the collective judgement of our legislators and our courts which has a perfectly reasonable mandate to protect it's citizens from prejudice and unfair business practices. That is the answer as to WHY we would would want to prevent people from using racist or prejudice practices. This shit seems so obvious that I truly wonder why you're arguing about it unless you were really racist or prejudice against certain groups
In spite of your brilliant analysis that whites might pay off their loans on time and blacks don't.....thats EXACTLY the type of abuse that the laws are created to prevent. BTW - the best way to tell if someone will pay their bills on time is having a history of paying their bills on time. Credit scoring models take that and many other factors into consideration but race, creed, religion, etc.. are not viable factors in determining likelihood of repayment
Maybe you should read the ECOA sometime. It covers more than just race
Here's the basics:
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) is a United States law (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.), enacted in 1974, that makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract);[1] to the fact that all or part of the applicant’s income derives from a public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The law applies to any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly participates in a credit decision, including banks, retailers, bankcard companies, finance companies, and credit unions.
Your point that a racist landlord can still achieve his racist goals even if prevented from overt or explicit prejudice is certainly true but again, I don't agree that it's a reason to take no action at all. Your point seems to be that some people wil stil get away with it so we might as well not make any effort at all. Basically we'll never catch everyone so why make any effort at all. That a great idea. Why bother having speed limits if we know that some people will still speed and not be caught. For that matter, why have laws agaisnt murder, rape, etc.. since we surely can't catch every murder
btw - in spite of your denial you sound pretty damn racist to me......either that or all of you posts are merely playing devils advocate for some reason
-
I'm not sure if you're really serious or just playing devils advocate
I am very serious.
first of all it's not "my judgement" that is being used. It's the collective judgement of our legislators and our courts which has a perfectly reasonable mandate to protect it's citizens from prejudice and unfair business practices.
I didn't mean "you" personally. I was referring to this nebulous collective judgement. I don't believe this "collective judgement" can or should replace or supplement my own. Frankly, I don't think it's as good as my judgement, and I wish that it'd collectively go to hell. If the collective judgement of the public is that a landlord (or a banker) is racist or prejudiced or whatever else, the public has means at its disposal to punish those people: by not doing business with them.
That is the answer as to WHY we would would want to prevent people from using racist or prejudice practices. This shit seems so obvious that I truly wonder why you're arguing about it unless you were really racist or prejudice against certain groups
I'm neither racist nor prejudiced against anyone; I simply don't believe that the Government should have the authority to tell me how to act and how to think; why you consider this to be the hallmark of a racist or someone who is prejudiced is beyond me. Perhaps you're the one who's prejudiced?
In spite of your brilliant analysis that whites might pay off their loans on time and blacks don't.....thats EXACTLY the type of abuse that the laws are created to prevent. BTW - the best way to tell if someone will pay their bills on time is having a history of paying their bills on time. Credit scoring models take that and many other factors into consideration but race, creed, religion, etc.. are not viable factors in determining likelihood of repayment
First of all, it wasn't an analysis. It was a HYPOTHETICAL (hence the use of "arguendo" – which means, literally, for the sake of argument). I never asserted that whites are more likely to pay off their loans on time and blacks aren't. I was arguing an example, and "black" and "white" where just convenient labels. Frankly, I've no idea if there is such a correlation. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
But you, on the other hand, assert that any of these factors are not viable. As I said, perhaps they aren't, but how do you know? What are you basing this assertion on? Do you have any hard facts? Any studies that you can point us to? Any research that has been published perhaps?
Before you answer, I'll even give you an example that demolishes the notion itself to shreds. Followers of Harold Camping took out loans and maxed out credit cards, fully expecting never to have to pay those back. Do you REALLY think that this belief (which the bank CANNOT LEGALLY CONSIDER when making a decision on whether to grant the loan) is irrelevant? Shouldn't that affect the credit-worthiness rating of an individual?
Maybe you should read the ECOA sometime. It covers more than just race
I'm well aware of what attributes a bank can't consider. Let's play some more hypothetical games, shall we? Do you think a bank should be able to say "For the next 30 days, when a married couple gets a mortgage with us to buy their first home, we will make the first three payments as a wedding gift!"? If not, why not? If yes, why yes? What if the bank, instead of offering to make three payments, turns around and discounts the interest rate by, say, 5 basis points? What then? And what if the bank wants to say, instead, "for married couples, the minimum FICO score we will require for a mortgage to be approved will be reduced by 25 points"? Would that be OK?
Why is it OK for the government to give incentives to married couples (e.g. larger tax exemptions) but NOT OK for a private company to give similar special incentives?
Your point that a racist landlord can still achieve his racist goals even if prevented from overt or explicit prejudice is certainly true but again, I don't agree that it's a reason to take no action at all.
Quite right, it's not a reason to take no action at all. But that's jumping a bit ahead: the question is should we be taking action in the first place? You've yet to convince me; you just keep saying that that's what we, collectively, decided. That may very well be, but at some point we had collectively decided to outlaw booze. Indeed, at various points in our history, we had collectively decided to prohibit many things, some of which we later found out we should have never prohibited. Why is this decision different than all those other decisions of the past?
Your point seems to be that some people wil stil get away with it so we might as well not make any effort at all. Basically we'll never catch everyone so why make any effort at all. That a great idea. Why bother having speed limits if we know that some people will still speed and not be caught. For that matter, why have laws agaisnt murder, rape, etc.. since we surely can't catch every murder
The government setting speed limits on its own roads isn't a good analogy. A more correct analogy would be to have to government tell me that I must have a speed limit on the private toll road I plan on building between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Or better yet, that I must allow everyone who wants to, to use my road. Do you really think that the government should be able to regulate what happens on my private road, and who is allowed to traverse it?
Your example of murder, rape, etc is also not applicable. The government has a Constitutional responsibility to protect people's rights. It doesn't have a responsibility to ensure that people get credit from private institutions.
btw - in spite of your denial you sound pretty damn racist to me......either that or all of you posts are merely playing devils advocate for some reason
Good grief... ::) Believe whatever you want to believe - I know what I am and what I'm not and I don't particularly care about what I sound like to you.
-
If someone is a racist and doesn't want to rent an apartment to a black man, who is really being hurt, except the racist who loses the income?
Uh, the black man?
-
jesus I have no time to read all of that -maybe later if I care
can you boil your beliefs down to a few bullet points
-
Uh, the black man?
Seriously? Someone being turned down for an apartment means that person was hurt? He didn't have a right to rent the apartment; nobody has a right to rent an apartment. Suppose the landlord decided to rent his property, but only wanted to rent it to someone for storing stuff and not for living there? Would you accuse the owner of being a "antihumanist" or a "stuffist" perhaps?
jesus I have no time to read all of that -maybe later if I care
So don't.
can you boil your beliefs down to a few bullet points
When I was less verbose, you twisted my words and accused me (at least twice) of being a racist. Now that I elaborate on my positions, you say you don't have time to read them... ::)
-
Seriously? Someone being turned down for an apartment means that person was hurt? He didn't have a right to rent the apartment; nobody has a right to rent an apartment. Suppose the landlord decided to rent his property, but only wanted to rent it to someone for storing stuff and not for living there? Would you accuse the owner of being a "antihumanist" or a "stuffist" perhaps?
So don't.
When I was less verbose, you twisted my words and accused me (at least twice) of being a racist. Now that I elaborate on my positions, you say you don't have time to read them... ::)
Yes, he could be hurt. What if his friends and family lived in that neighborhood or it was the only available apartment close to his job?
Renting storage space and an apartment are two different things.
An apartment implies livability. There are certain legal criteria that must be met to rent something as an apartment.
-
Yes, he could be hurt. What if his friends and family lived in that neighborhood or it was the only available apartment close to his job?
But that "hurt" is irrelevant - he could be hurt whether the landlord is a racist or not: someone else could get the apartment from him. It's ridiculous to assert that this is some hurt that will uniquely crop up when landlords discriminate against tenants. Plus, the prospective tenant is just that: a prospective tenant. He doesn't have a right to rent, and the refusal to rent isn't an injury.
Renting storage space and an apartment are two different things.
An apartment implies livability. There are certain legal criteria that must be met to rent something as an apartment.
I have an apartment - it meets all the legal criteria for livability. But I'm only willing to rent it to you for storage, not for living there. Am I a "stuffist"? Perhaps I don't like the noise associated with tenants and prefer to have inanimate objects there instead. Am I a "noisist"?
-
But that "hurt" is irrelevant - he could be hurt whether the landlord is a racist or not: someone else could get the apartment from him. It's ridiculous to assert that this is some hurt that will uniquely crop up when landlords discriminate against tenants. Plus, the prospective tenant is just that: a prospective tenant. He doesn't have a right to rent, and the refusal to rent isn't an injury.
I have an apartment - it meets all the legal criteria for livability. But I'm only willing to rent it to you for storage, not for living there. Am I a "stuffist"? Perhaps I don't like the noise associated with tenants and prefer to have inanimate objects there instead. Am I a "noisist"?
Rent it any way you like, but if you want to rent it as an apartment it must meet criteria. I'm not sure what's so difficult about that or what your following "-ist" words are all about.
Sure, a landlord can discriminate on some matters. As for discrimination by race, gender, creed or religion, that's the law of the land. A majority of Americans agee on it. If you are so unhappy with it, start lobbying Congress. I would be interested to know the name of your group.
-
Rent it any way you like, but if you want to rent it as an apartment it must meet criteria.
I never argued otherwise - and if you think I have, please quote the relevant block of text; I'd be curious to read it.
Sure, a landlord can discriminate on some matters. As for discrimination by race, gender, creed or religion, that's the law of the land. A majority of Americans agee on it. If you are so unhappy with it, start lobbying Congress. I would be interested to know the name of your group.
I agree it's the law of the land, and I respect that. But I don't have to like it, and it should be obvious that I don't. And lest Straw Man jump in here and accuse me of being a racist again, let me point out in advance that my position has nothing to do with racism and I dislike the law on principle and the principle is unrelated to any kind of racism or prejudice on my part.
As for lobbying Congress, I have better things to do than play Don Quixote.
-
Leftists only care about freedom to kill their kids and marry another man. Other than that they are tyrants.
-
Leftists only care about freedom to kill their kids and marry another man. Other than that they are tyrants.
No no its republicans who wants to kill kids by denying them health insurance. And the repub party is filled with closet homos and child offenders
-
Seriously? Someone being turned down for an apartment means that person was hurt? He didn't have a right to rent the apartment; nobody has a right to rent an apartment. Suppose the landlord decided to rent his property, but only wanted to rent it to someone for storing stuff and not for living there? Would you accuse the owner of being a "antihumanist" or a "stuffist" perhaps?
Thank you, the logic in your posts is very refreshing!
-
A majority of Americans agee on it.
They probably don't. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is full of garbage, and generally has no business being law in a free society.
-
Rand Paul revisits Civil Rights Act
Paul's position on the 1964 Civil Rights Act is pretty clear: he believes in nine of the 10 sections that dealt with removing discrimination by the government.
Paul’s position on the 1964 Civil Rights Act is clear: he supports nine of the 10 sections that dealt with removing discrimination by the government. The Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of institutionalized racism on the part of the government; the majority of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did was remove any government discrimination. However, Title II of the act deals with discrimination by “public accommodations” which gets into how private business owners can run their businesses.
-
That does NOT work in the real world. To think customers will prevent racism by boycotting a business is pure fantasy and ignorant.
I am not saying our racism laws are perfect, but to allow businesses to discriminate based on race is stupid as it gets. What if you are traveling and. Your car breaks down in a remote town populated by a different race that refuses to help you kind of race. How's your fucking boycott going to work then? ::)
-
In what fantasy world does your town exist?
Don't know what state you live in but in California there are plenty of areas/neighborhoods and towns that are predominately Hispanic, black or white. Maybe you should get out more. ;)
Why is it fantasy and ignorant to think that if a business loses money when it discriminates, it will stop discriminating. A business discriminating also would open the door for a competitor to open its doors and to use non discriminatory practices. If the people dont want to deal with a discriminatory business they are free to shop at the competitor and thus either force the first business to change or go under. Or they can open there own business. Are you saying peolle cant get together and ooen there own business to compete and drive out racism from the business in ntheir area? Are you saying consumers are powerless to effect how businesses work? Sounds like youre ignorant. State why you think its fantasy and ignorant. Do this without creating a fantasy world please.
If it wasn't a problem to begin with i don't think a law would have been created to counter it. (don't assume i am saying ALL business were discriminating) Further more what's to prevent these "businesses" from discriminating with pricing also. Fact is, it was going on and laws had to be enacted to prevent it. Your bullshit fantasy theory wasn't working.
But don't misunderstand me I agree with you, it makes logical sense what you are saying, but in the real world, with real people it doesn't work. We are not near advance enough as a species to do the right thing with out laws. That's why i call it fantasy.
-
Leftists only care about freedom to kill their kids and marry another man. Other than that they are tyrants.
fact.
-
Leftists only care about freedom to kill their kids and marry another man. Other than that they are tyrants.
Spin Cock
-
Rosa parks, dude. The organized boycott of the bus segregatiopolicies forced the changes there. Boycotts and organized protests against distasteful practices can be very powerful. Especially if you need to pay your bills. As all businesses do.
Yet is was still going on (similar things such as water fountains and bathrooms) all over the place in many many states. Hence the need for a law.
What about the towns where there isn't enough of the opposing race to stage an effective boycott? Obviously those business owners don't give a fuck because they are doing just fine with their "preferred race" patrons and see no need to sell to the other race.
BTW: that was a city bus, and quite a bit of marching and protest was needed to change things there. It that supposed to happen to the local feed store in BeBe town Iowa where there's 200 of another race and 30,000 of the other?
-
Spin Cock
Really? name one other freedom libs ever stand up for?
-
Really? name one other freedom libs ever stand up for?
Don't know I am not a lib. but i know SPIN COCK when i see it. :) You don't.
-
Don't know what state you live in but in California there are plenty of areas/neighborhoods and towns that are predominately Hispanic, black or white. Maybe you should get out more. ;)
It's one thing for an area to be prodominantly occupied by people of a certain ethnic group and/or race. That says nothing about whether that predominant ethnic group or race would discriminate towards other ethnic groups and/or races. And it is quite another issue for an entire town to discriminate, so that the stranded motorist in your example couldn't get help.
If it wasn't a problem to begin with i don't think a law would have been created to counter it.
Right. Laws are only passed when there are problems to be addressed. Now who is the one living in a fantasy world?
(don't assume i am saying ALL business were discriminating) Further more what's to prevent these "businesses" from discriminating with pricing also. Fact is, it was going on and laws had to be enacted to prevent it. Your bullshit fantasy theory wasn't working.
If a business wants to charge, say, hispanics, more for certain items, I would simply open up a competing store and sell lower, attracting the hispanic population with better pricing. And that's the point of the argument: as a business owner, it makes no sense to discriminate because money is money - and it will remain legal tender whether the person who handed them to you was white, brown, red, yellow, black, blue, green or even fuchsia.
We are not near advance enough as a species to do the right thing with out laws. That's why i call it fantasy.
That's a profoundly stupid argument. You're saying that we are not advanced enough to do the right thing without laws, but then, in the same sentence you assert that we're somehow advanced enough to recognize this and pass laws that "solve" the problem?
Besides if this is really such a big and widespread problem as you suggest, then is it really "solving" a problem to pass a law and to, effectively, throw a cover over the problem and pretend it's solved, when the underlying problem (according to you) is our nature?
-
These days it seems pretty easy to whip up a wave of indignation about racial discrimination. And to have that effect a business. So, i disagree with you.
Hard to determine that being that these have existed now for a generation or 2. Also, with a national chain, yes, but with local businesses hardly.
-
That does NOT work in the real world. To think customers will prevent racism by boycotting a business is pure fantasy and ignorant.
I am not saying our racism laws are perfect, but to allow businesses to discriminate based on race is stupid as it gets. What if you are traveling and. Your car breaks down in a remote town populated by a different race that refuses to help you kind of race. How's your fucking boycott going to work then? ::)
What business is going to turn down $$$? The KKK themselves wouldn't even turn down business based on race.
-
If it wasn't a problem to begin with i don't think a law would have been created to counter it.
Yeah, that's generally the case... ::)
-
I am very serious.
I didn't mean "you" personally. I was referring to this nebulous collective judgement. I don't believe this "collective judgement" can or should replace or supplement my own. Frankly, I don't think it's as good as my judgement, and I wish that it'd collectively go to hell. If the collective judgement of the public is that a landlord (or a banker) is racist or prejudiced or whatever else, the public has means at its disposal to punish those people: by not doing business with them.
I'm neither racist nor prejudiced against anyone; I simply don't believe that the Government should have the authority to tell me how to act and how to think; why you consider this to be the hallmark of a racist or someone who is prejudiced is beyond me. Perhaps you're the one who's prejudiced?
First of all, it wasn't an analysis. It was a HYPOTHETICAL (hence the use of "arguendo" – which means, literally, for the sake of argument). I never asserted that whites are more likely to pay off their loans on time and blacks aren't. I was arguing an example, and "black" and "white" where just convenient labels. Frankly, I've no idea if there is such a correlation. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
But you, on the other hand, assert that any of these factors are not viable. As I said, perhaps they aren't, but how do you know? What are you basing this assertion on? Do you have any hard facts? Any studies that you can point us to? Any research that has been published perhaps?
Before you answer, I'll even give you an example that demolishes the notion itself to shreds. Followers of Harold Camping took out loans and maxed out credit cards, fully expecting never to have to pay those back. Do you REALLY think that this belief (which the bank CANNOT LEGALLY CONSIDER when making a decision on whether to grant the loan) is irrelevant? Shouldn't that affect the credit-worthiness rating of an individual?
I'm well aware of what attributes a bank can't consider. Let's play some more hypothetical games, shall we? Do you think a bank should be able to say "For the next 30 days, when a married couple gets a mortgage with us to buy their first home, we will make the first three payments as a wedding gift!"? If not, why not? If yes, why yes? What if the bank, instead of offering to make three payments, turns around and discounts the interest rate by, say, 5 basis points? What then? And what if the bank wants to say, instead, "for married couples, the minimum FICO score we will require for a mortgage to be approved will be reduced by 25 points"? Would that be OK?
Why is it OK for the government to give incentives to married couples (e.g. larger tax exemptions) but NOT OK for a private company to give similar special incentives?
Quite right, it's not a reason to take no action at all. But that's jumping a bit ahead: the question is should we be taking action in the first place? You've yet to convince me; you just keep saying that that's what we, collectively, decided. That may very well be, but at some point we had collectively decided to outlaw booze. Indeed, at various points in our history, we had collectively decided to prohibit many things, some of which we later found out we should have never prohibited. Why is this decision different than all those other decisions of the past?
The government setting speed limits on its own roads isn't a good analogy. A more correct analogy would be to have to government tell me that I must have a speed limit on the private toll road I plan on building between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Or better yet, that I must allow everyone who wants to, to use my road. Do you really think that the government should be able to regulate what happens on my private road, and who is allowed to traverse it?
Your example of murder, rape, etc is also not applicable. The government has a Constitutional responsibility to protect people's rights. It doesn't have a responsibility to ensure that people get credit from private institutions.
Good grief... ::) Believe whatever you want to believe - I know what I am and what I'm not and I don't particularly care about what I sound like to you.
For what ever reason I can't respond to super long posts without the "box" where I type the text jumping around all over the place
just so we're on the same page - there is no requirement that banks extend credit to anyone. the only requirement is that they have equal standards and don't use race, religion, sex, etc.. as a criteria
I'm glad you agree that the governement has a Constitutional responsibility to protect people rights
I think they also have a duty to protect people from unfair and discriminatory business practices (you can tell me if freedom from discrimination is a "right" or not). In fact not just a duty but an actual interest in making sure that all their citizens are treated fairly and equally not only to protect their rights but for the actual health of the market. The habit of redlining resulted in lower property values and ecouraged landlord abandonment (I copied that text from Wiki - just fyi)
Your claims regarding your example with Harold Camping followers are not entirely correct. Depending on what types of loans they got they could well have been denied if they gave their true reason for wanting the loan and that would not be discrimination because banks can limit lending based on the purpose of the loan. Going forward those people will have a very hard time getting a loan but not because of the reason they got the first loan but because their payment history is now tarnished....i.e. the history of repayment is the best and most valid indicator of future repayment.
Regarding my example of speed limits. What's the difference between me driving my car on a public road and you owning an investment property located on a public street and existing within a public rental market and an obviously public economy
Your example about married couples could not happen. It would violate the ECOA
-
just so we're on the same page - there is no requirement that banks extend credit to anyone. the only requirement is that they have equal standards and don't use race, religion, sex, etc.. as a criteria
You keep asserting that. I agree that it's currently the law, and since it's the law, banks should comply. But you're not answering the question: why should that be a requirement?
I think they also have a duty to protect people from unfair and discriminatory business practices (you can tell me if freedom from discrimination is a "right" or not).
What you think is irrelevant. What matters is what the charter of the Government (the Constitution) states explicitly or requires implicitly. To answer your question: I don't believe that "freedom from discrimination" from third parties is a right; certainly freedom from government discrimination is under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and that is as it should be.
In fact not just a duty but an actual interest in making sure that all their citizens are treated fairly and equally not only to protect their rights but for the actual health of the market.
First of all, I think you're somewhat confused about the concept of rights. You have a right to free speech, but that right only means that it's the Government can't control your speech; someone who happens to operate a book publishing business, for example, isn't required to publish your manuscript, and your right to free speech isn't implicated. In general, no right of yours can exist at the expense of others.
Secondly, again you assert that failure to let people & businesses apply whatever criteria they want in the day-to-day business operations will, somehow, affect the health of the market. I think the current economic snafu proves otherwise; to a very large extent, the current mess we're in is because of laws that prevented businesses from making sound fiscal decisions and mandated that they make risky loans.
The habit of redlining resulted in lower property values and ecouraged landlord abandonment (I copied that text from Wiki - just fyi)
Perhaps you should have read and copied a bit more: This only happened after a government agency drew up maps where high-risk areas (which overwhelmingly included minority neighborhoods) were colored red. Those maps were then used by banks in evaluating loan requests, and, predictably resulted in banks denying loans to anyone living in the red areas. The problem there wasn't banks being racist. The problem resulted from the Government's involvement.
Your claims regarding your example with Harold Camping followers are not entirely correct. Depending on what types of loans they got they could well have been denied if they gave their true reason for wanting the loan and that would not be discrimination because banks can limit lending based on the purpose of the loan.
Yet you still don't think that the bank should be able to ask and consider the religion of the applicant?
Going forward those people will have a very hard time getting a loan but not because of the reason they got the first loan but because their payment history is now tarnished....i.e. the history of repayment is the best and most valid indicator of future repayment.
W
Regarding my example of speed limits. What's the difference between me driving my car on a public road and you owning an investment property located on a public street and existing within a public rental market and an obviously public economy
There's a huge difference: you own a car that you want to operate on the property of someone else (i.e. the Government's road). That someone else can impose rules & regulations on you (i.e. the Government can say "no faster than 65"). I, on the other hand, own the property and I'm not seeking to operate it on the property of someone else.
As for the whole "public rental market" and "obviously public economy" nonsense, it's... well... nonsense. What exactly does "public rental market" mean in this instance? How does it differ from a "private rental market"? And, similarly, what does "public economy" mean in this context? That the public is involved? Great, so? How is it different from a "private economy"?
Your example about married couples could not happen. It would violate the ECOA
Actually, some parts may not violate it, but those are details; let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they all do. What interests me is why you think the ECOA should limit this sort of activity, and why another entity (the Government) should be able to "discriminate" based on those very same factors, by offering married couples tax incentives.
-
The Republicans do actually have a plan.
That being said, fuck Mitch McConnell and all his RINO-Fake Conservative friends. This guy and the idiots like Lindsey Graham and Lugar need to go. Now.
-
The Republicans do actually have a plan.
That being said, fuck Mitch McConnell and all his RINO-Fake Conservative friends. This guy and the idiots like Lindsey Graham and Lugar need to go. Now.
Agree.
What is the republican plan?
-
It's one thing for an area to be prodominantly occupied by people of a certain ethnic group and/or race. That says nothing about whether that predominant ethnic group or race would discriminate towards other ethnic groups and/or races. And it is quite another issue for an entire town to discriminate, so that the stranded motorist in your example couldn't get help.
The stranded motorist thing was just an example. It not about whether they would because of being the predominant race in a certain town or neighborhood its about that the example i gave happened that way and in many other ways leading up to the discrimination laws that have been passed.
Right. Laws are only passed when there are problems to be addressed. Now who is the one living in a fantasy world?
Mainly you are in a fantasy world right now. This is what i said: "If it wasn't a problem to begin with i don't think a law would have been created to counter it."
Where do i say or directly infer in that sentence "laws are ONLY passed when there are problems to be addressed"
I assert now, that you are living in a fantasy world on this forum where you accuse people of saying things they didn't say. ;) :)
If a business wants to charge, say, hispanics, more for certain items, I would simply open up a competing store and sell lower, attracting the hispanic population with better pricing. And that's the point of the argument: as a business owner, it makes no sense to discriminate because money is money - and it will remain legal tender whether the person who handed them to you was white, brown, red, yellow, black, blue, green or even fuchsia.
It makes sense with most business owners of course. Most business owners are not racist to the point they would not sell to certain races if given the opportunity to do so. But some are, or were anyway. Also there are many instances where there wouldn't be the availability or prudence to "SIMPLY" open up a competing store. There would be many reasons for this and too much to just explain here. The fact that you would just think it would be that "simple" suggests you don't have much experience in business. Here's a question that may help: Why is there not a walgreens or McDaonalds in every town in America?
That's a profoundly stupid argument. You're saying that we are not advanced enough to do the right thing without laws, but then, in the same sentence you assert that we're somehow advanced enough to recognize this and pass laws that "solve" the problem?
I don't think you understand my point. We have laws because we don't, as a whole, always choose to do the right thing.
Besides if this is really such a big and widespread problem as you suggest, then is it really "solving" a problem to pass a law and to, effectively, throw a cover over the problem and pretend it's solved, when the underlying problem (according to you) is our nature?
I don't know if its a problem at all now because of present day laws. Pretty sure its not. I am sure it wasn't a wide spread problem before the laws. But without the laws, it did occur, with some business refusing to sell to certain races and those people having limited choices.
-
I guess you didnt catch the pool that was accused of discrimnation in philly a couple years back? I is local business and became national news. There is one example for my side. Do you have any examples or. Is this all just hypothetical scenarios that fit your view o the world?
What were the details? I vaguely remember the issue about the pool.
Was another pool built right next it?
-
What business is going to turn down $$$? The KKK themselves wouldn't even turn down business based on race.
Are you saying it never happens or never happened?
-
Are you saying it never happens or never happened?
Who gives a shit? I turned down a muslim client who was a islamo nut because of it, even though it could have been productive. ITS CALLED FREEDOM OF CHOICE - something I know most libs are dead set against unless its killing their kids or marrying another dude.
-
Who gives a shit? I turned down a muslim client who was a islamo nut because of it, even though it could have been productive. ITS CALLED FREEDOM OF CHOICE - something I know most libs are dead set against unless its killing their kids or marrying another dude.
SPIN COCK
-
SPIN COCK
LOL. We all make choices every day regardless of laws. Are you for forced integration in school lunch rooms? Seems to me most people CHOOSE to stay with their own when given the choice.
-
LOL. We all make choices every day regardless of laws. Are you for forced integration in school lunch rooms? Seems to me most people CHOOSE to stay with their own when given the choice.
SPIN COCK ::)
Are you for Liberals being rounded up and put into prison camps?
-
SPIN COCK ::)
Are you for Liberals being rounded up and put into prison camps?
No way - they would garner sympathy. Its far better to allow libs spew their idiocy in the public square to be roundly laughed at for their naive bs.
-
Home > Nation > Philly Pool Accused Of Discrimination To File For Bankruptcy
Philly Pool Accused Of Discrimination To File For Bankruptcy
Nov 16, 2009 5 Comments By NewsOne Staff
PHILADELPHIA — A suburban swim club accused of discrimination last summer after revoking the memberships of mostly black and Hispanic children plans to declare bankruptcy, a newspaper reported Saturday.
Valley Swim Club president John Duesler sent an e-mail to club “friends and families” Friday saying the board of directors had voted to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy this week, The Philadelphia Daily News reported.
RELATED: Black Kids & Parents Reject Invitation To Return To Pool
Duesler wrote in the e-mail that many would blame the bankruptcy on legal proceedings and negative media exposure, the newspaper said. But, he said, “the truth is that the club has struggled to stay out of the red for at least the last decade” and owes more than $100,000 in operational expenses and legal fees, the newspaper reported.
Duesler declined to comment to The Associated Press on Saturday.
Members “are all tired and beaten down and just sickened by how our club has been improperly portrayed,” he said, according to the Daily News. “After speaking to many members, my sense is that mostly everyone wants to move on.”
RELATED: Tyler Perry Sends Kids Discriminated Against By Philly Pool To Disney
The Creative Steps day camp had arranged for the youngsters to swim at the Huntingdon Valley club each Monday during the summer. But during the first visit in June by 56 children — 46 black and 10 Hispanic — two children reported hearing racial comments, and the day camp’s payment was later refunded, according to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
The commission said in a decision in September that it had found probable cause to conclude that the campers were asked not to return because of the “racial animus” expressed by one member and “racially coded comments” by other members.
“I am taken aback right now. It really comes as a surprise,” Creative Steps director Alethea Wright told the AP on Saturday when told about the reported bankruptcy plans.
Brian Mildenberg, an attorney for the children in a lawsuit against the swim club, told the AP the bankruptcy filing puts a temporary stay, or hold, on the suit filed against the club.
“However, the human relations discrimination proceedings, as well as the lawsuits, would be allowed to proceed if the bankruptcy court grants relief,” Mildenberg said.
The Valley Club has maintained that the number of children exceeded the number of lifeguards on duty and that only a few of the children knew how to swim. A club attorney said it had offered to reinstate the campers for the rest of the summer or guarantee them free memberships next year.
The state commission, however, said other large groups that came to the swim club did not elicit a similar reaction, and the club had no black members among 334 paid memberships for the last two years.
Tags: Discrimination > Philadelphia > Racism
Newer Post →← Older Post
Daily Links
Media stories sparked wave of demonstrations and backlash against pool. Pool goes bankrupt. Someone else must have bought their assets at a discount and is running it better.
Thanks. Was what they were doing against the law?
What if the pool was in a community were there wasn't a large enough black population to make a boycott effective?
-
Im pretty sure people come in from outside the area to protect their own. I have no problem with this. The free organization and protection of individual rights.
Why should they have to? What if its not economically feasible?
I dislike when the government institutes laws providing advantage to one group over another.
I strongly agree with this. I am not a AA supporter. But believe and have seen first hand racism in the work place.
Dont know if what they were doing was against the law or not.
Don't you think that's an important factor in this discussion?
All i know is that the consumers didnt appreciatte the way they did business and they caused a change by demonstrating against them and causing media attention about it. No government necessary. Freely organized pissed off consumers decided they werent going to take what they felt were unfair business practices. Said business goes bankrupt. Another party buys assets at a discount and provides services for these consumers that they enjoy more. And the new owners who take the risk to buy the assets and provide service are provided money for their services proportionate to the satisfaction of the cutomer
This was in a city full of black people. Something that needs to remembered here.
-
The stranded motorist thing was just an example. It not about whether they would because of being the predominant race in a certain town or neighborhood its about that the example i gave happened that way and in many other ways leading up to the discrimination laws that have been passed.
Let's assume, for a second, that your example is proof that discrimination laws were needed. I assert that a discrimination law wouldn't be of any practical help: if a whole community wouldn't provide help to a stranded motorist on racist grounds a law wouldn't make any difference: they wouldn't provide the assistance, and if the motorist ever made it to another less racist city and tried to hold them accountable under the law, the whole community would lie.
Is this a reason not to pass the law? No, of course not. But it does point out the futility of these kinds of laws.
Mainly you are in a fantasy world right now. This is what i said: "If it wasn't a problem to begin with i don't think a law would have been created to counter it."
Where do i say or directly infer in that sentence "laws are ONLY passed when there are problems to be addressed"
You wrote: "if not X then Y". I agree that you can't go from that to "Y, therefore not X" (it's a logical fallacy, called "affirming the consequent") but in this particular case you certainly seemed to suggest that you believe that the fact that these laws were passed is proof that were was a problem to be addressed. If you don't, then on what ground do you think such laws are needed?
I assert now, that you are living in a fantasy world on this forum where you accuse people of saying things they didn't say. ;) :)
As long as I have 25" pythons in your fantasy world, then I'm good.
It makes sense with most business owners of course. Most business owners are not racist to the point they would not sell to certain races if given the opportunity to do so. But some are, or were anyway. Also there are many instances where there wouldn't be the availability or prudence to "SIMPLY" open up a competing store. There would be many reasons for this and too much to just explain here. The fact that you would just think it would be that "simple" suggests you don't have much experience in business. Here's a question that may help: Why is there not a walgreens or McDaonalds in every town in America?
Whether there is a McDonalds or a Walgreens in every town in the U.S. is irrelevant but I grant you that there aren't. Let's assume that we have Smalltown, U.S.A.: an everyday small town, not unlike the thousands of others, except that all the people living there are racists - let's assume they aren't violent, since that gets us in a whole 'nother discussion - and that one day a new guy moves into town. We'll call him Larry. So Larry happily moves into town and is all excited. He goes to the local grocery store to get some food, but the local grocery store won't sell him food, because the owner doesn't serve "his kind." He then goes to the restaurant, but again, he can't get any service. Soon Larry realizes that everyone else living in town is profoundly racist and that he will not be able to acquire basic items like food, gasoline and the like.
Do you really believe that a law that forces the racist occupants of Smalltown to do business with Larry will help him and that it's in his best interest? I would suggest that rather than legally punishing the racist occupants of Smalltown, we (collectively) are better off to let that shit-hole of a town slowly wither away and fade into the pages of history.
I don't think you understand my point. We have laws because we don't, as a whole, always choose to do the right thing.
You changed things a bit. So we know what the right thing to do is, but we, individually, don't always do it. That's a bit of a truism, so there's not much to say on that. But there is an important question that's related to this, which you are skipping: is a law the correct approach and the way to solve this problem? More importantly, is it even a problem?
I don't know if its a problem at all now because of present day laws. Pretty sure its not. I am sure it wasn't a wide spread problem before the laws. But without the laws, it did occur, with some business refusing to sell to certain races and those people having limited choices.
To reuse your example: McDonalds isn't in every town in the U.S. and the people that in a town without a McDonalds have limited choices. Should a law be passed mandating that McDonalds operate a store in every town in America to ensure that American consumers have choices?
-
Let's assume, for a second, that your example is proof that discrimination laws were needed. I assert that a discrimination law wouldn't be of any practical help: if a whole community wouldn't provide help to a stranded motorist on racist grounds a law wouldn't make any difference: they wouldn't provide the assistance, and if the motorist ever made it to another less racist city and tried to hold them accountable under the law, the whole community would lie.
Is this a reason not to pass the law? No, of course not. But it does point out the futility of these kinds of laws.
Nope i think not. It may work initially in the first few instances but the state or federal government will eventually get the word.
You wrote: "if not X then Y". I agree that you can't go from that to "Y, therefore not X" (it's a logical fallacy, called "affirming the consequent") but in this particular case you certainly seemed to suggest that you believe that the fact that these laws were passed is proof that were was a problem to be addressed. If you don't, then on what ground do you think such laws are needed?
As long as I have 25" pythons in your fantasy world, then I'm good.
What does affirming the consequent have to do with you putting words in my mouth? I NEVER said laws are ONLY passed when there are problems to be addressed.
So ask you to please leave you fantasy world for a minute and recognized i never said that, but instead, address what i did say: "If it wasn't a problem to begin with i don't think a law would have been created to counter it." ....keeping in mind I NOT saying: "If no problems then no laws" removing the possibility of passing laws based on prediction and prevention.
BTW, i have seen a 25+ foot Python up close. (in the real world, in person, :))
Whether there is a McDonalds or a Walgreens in every town in the U.S. is irrelevant but I grant you that there aren't. Let's assume that we have Smalltown, U.S.A.: an everyday small town, not unlike the thousands of others, except that all the people living there are racists - let's assume they aren't violent, since that gets us in a whole 'nother discussion - and that one day a new guy moves into town. We'll call him Larry. So Larry happily moves into town and is all excited. He goes to the local grocery store to get some food, but the local grocery store won't sell him food, because the owner doesn't serve "his kind." He then goes to the restaurant, but again, he can't get any service. Soon Larry realizes that everyone else living in town is profoundly racist and that he will not be able to acquire basic items like food, gasoline and the like.
Do you really believe that a law that forces the racist occupants of Smalltown to do business with Larry will help him and that it's in his best interest? I would suggest that rather than legally punishing the racist occupants of Smalltown, we (collectively) are better off to let that shit-hole of a town slowly wither away and fade into the pages of history.
I do think its in anyone's best interest not to exercise racism in anyway. There should be consequences for any business who do break those laws. Further more a healthy economy in any town is better for our country then dead and dying racist ones.
BTW: your example here shows the fallacy of your "simple" solution. ;)
You changed things a bit. So we know what the right thing to do is, but we, individually, don't always do it. That's a bit of a truism, so there's not much to say on that. But there is an important question that's related to this, which you are skipping: is a law the correct approach and the way to solve this problem? More importantly, is it even a problem?
for now i believe laws are necessary. In time as our species evolves many laws will be unnecessary. It might a few tens of thousands of years though lol
To reuse your example: McDonalds isn't in every town in the U.S. and the people that in a town without a McDonalds have limited choices. Should a law be passed mandating that McDonalds operate a store in every town in America to ensure that American consumers have choices?
Nope.
-
I do think its in anyone's best interest not to exercise racism in anyway. There should be consequences for any business who do break those laws. Further more a healthy economy in any town is better for our country then dead and dying racist ones.
I agree it's in people's best interest to not exercise racism (or, more generally, discrimination), but I don't think that people who choose exercise racism so should face legal consequences from the state, anymore than I think that people who sell 5000 calorie pizzas should face legal repercussions because consumption of those pies will make one fatter than Scotty was in StarTrek VI.
BTW: your example here shows the fallacy of your "simple" solution. ;)
Here we go again... I'd argue that it's much simpler (and proper) to allow concerned citizens and communities to address racism directly by economic means instead of passing a cornucopia or laws and regulations.
Nope.
Why not? After all, you wrote: "But without the laws, it did occur, with some business refusing to sell to certain races and those people having limited choices." It's the same: without laws, it does occur, with some businesses refusing to open stores in certain towns, so those towns (and the people) have limited choices.
Or are you saying that limited choices caused by racism are a problem, but limited choices caused by other factors are OK? If so, then it seems that the issue of limited choices isn't your actual concern if this is the case.
-
You keep asserting that. I agree that it's currently the law, and since it's the law, banks should comply. But you're not answering the question: why should that be a requirement?
What you think is irrelevant. What matters is what the charter of the Government (the Constitution) states explicitly or requires implicitly. To answer your question: I don't believe that "freedom from discrimination" from third parties is a right; certainly freedom from government discrimination is under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and that is as it should be.
First of all, I think you're somewhat confused about the concept of rights. You have a right to free speech, but that right only means that it's the Government can't control your speech; someone who happens to operate a book publishing business, for example, isn't required to publish your manuscript, and your right to free speech isn't implicated. In general, no right of yours can exist at the expense of others.
Secondly, again you assert that failure to let people & businesses apply whatever criteria they want in the day-to-day business operations will, somehow, affect the health of the market. I think the current economic snafu proves otherwise; to a very large extent, the current mess we're in is because of laws that prevented businesses from making sound fiscal decisions and mandated that they make risky loans.
Perhaps you should have read and copied a bit more: This only happened after a government agency drew up maps where high-risk areas (which overwhelmingly included minority neighborhoods) were colored red. Those maps were then used by banks in evaluating loan requests, and, predictably resulted in banks denying loans to anyone living in the red areas. The problem there wasn't banks being racist. The problem resulted from the Government's involvement.
Yet you still don't think that the bank should be able to ask and consider the religion of the applicant?
W
There's a huge difference: you own a car that you want to operate on the property of someone else (i.e. the Government's road). That someone else can impose rules & regulations on you (i.e. the Government can say "no faster than 65"). I, on the other hand, own the property and I'm not seeking to operate it on the property of someone else.
As for the whole "public rental market" and "obviously public economy" nonsense, it's... well... nonsense. What exactly does "public rental market" mean in this instance? How does it differ from a "private rental market"? And, similarly, what does "public economy" mean in this context? That the public is involved? Great, so? How is it different from a "private economy"?
Actually, some parts may not violate it, but those are details; let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they all do. What interests me is why you think the ECOA should limit this sort of activity, and why another entity (the Government) should be able to "discriminate" based on those very same factors, by offering married couples tax incentives.
It should not be a requirement because it leads to unfair treatment and I don't believe it's a valid criteria.
My position is quite simple. Everyone should have access to lending, housing, etc.. based on equal criteria. The government has a role and an interest in making sure the markets they create and regulate are fair. Since I think you've said that you don't think race is a relevent criteria in housing then why do you keep bringing it up
regarding redlning, maybe you should have noticed that the FHA did not actually use the maps to discriminate in their own lending. That was strictly a decision made by private parties. I assume you're also aware that many subdivisions in nice areas had CC&RS and other types of documents that had restrictions both on race and religion and this had nothing to do with the government maps
Regarding your statement that banks were mandated to make risky loans, this is simply not true. Banks made risky loans because they could make money by doing so. This is especially true of AltA and Subprime loans. Without collusion by Wall Street and the bond rating agencies those loans could not have existed because there would have been no willing buyers for the paper. The only reason those loans existed were for a profit motive. If you want to get into a longer discussion about Fannie/Fredddie or CRA loans I can show you that they were also not the cause of our current financial problem
Regarding Camping , I absolutely don't think their rrligion or anyone's should be a factor in lending. This one example was not due to their religion. It was due to them being insane and if they got loans and were honest about the purpose of their loan they could have well been denied for that reason. There could also be members of his church who paid back their loans with no problem at all so why discriminate solely on the basis of their religion (again their religion and not the purpose of why they want the loan). BTW - I'm not even aware that they got a bunch of loans. I thought most just sold all their shit and hit the road preaching the end of the world
Public rental market is THE rental market. Do you think your imaginary apartment building exists in a vacuum. It exists on a public street, makes use of public utilities and is sometime in need of public services such as fire and police
The goverment has every right to regulate this market and ensure fairness to all potential tenants and they also have an interest in doing so. The same example you gave for the private car operating on a public road applies
Final Question for you: Do you think race, religion, skin color, sex, marital status or age are valid (meaning reliable) criteria for making a credit decision on a loan or for a decision on a rent application. From reading your comments on the followers of Camping I would guess the answer is "yes" on at least religion but I have a feeling you'll tell me no
-
I agree it's in people's best interest to not exercise racism (or, more generally, discrimination), but I don't think that people who choose exercise racism so should face legal consequences from the state, anymore than I think that people who sell 5000 calorie pizzas should face legal repercussions because consumption of those pies will make one fatter than Scotty was in StarTrek VI.
I agree on the pizza thing but don't see much similarity to the racism thing. Some people are incapable of not being racist. Heck, I'd bet there are people who think there still should be slavery.
Here we go again... I'd argue that it's much simpler (and proper) to allow concerned citizens and communities to address racism directly by economic means instead of passing a cornucopia or laws and regulations.
I 1000% agree, its just not practical in the real world. (hence: fantasy :))
Why not? After all, you wrote: "But without the laws, it did occur, with some business refusing to sell to certain races and those people having limited choices." It's the same: without laws, it does occur, with some businesses refusing to open stores in certain towns, so those towns (and the people) have limited choices.
Or are you saying that limited choices caused by racism are a problem, but limited choices caused by other factors are OK? If so, then it seems that the issue of limited choices isn't your actual concern if this is the case.
I am not really sure what you are getting here, because what you saying doesn't seem to make much sense, unless of course you take sense out of it. You are talking about 2 different things and trying to put them in the same argument as equally related and relevant to each other and the argument. Is there a "logical fallacy" for that? I have a link bookmarked that lists a bunch of them but don't feel like reading it now lol.
We are talking racism and refusing to serve based on race. Which isn't related to whether or not it makes good business sense to open up a Micky Dees in a town of 300. I only brought the Micky Dees thing to begin lead you and show that the "simple solution" of just opening up another store was impractical and wouldn't work if there wasn't a large enough market.
-
I agree on the pizza thing but don't see much similarity to the racism thing. Some people are incapable of not being racist. Heck, I'd bet there are people who think there still should be slavery.
The laws won't change the people who are incapable of not being racist. At best, they'll continue to be racist, but they'll just hide it. I don't think that hiding such things is something that we, as a society, want.
I 1000% agree, its just not practical in the real world. (hence: fantasy :))
No, you assert it's not practical. There's a difference between you asserting that something is impractical and something actually being impractical.
I am not really sure what you are getting here, because what you saying doesn't seem to make much sense, unless of course you take sense out of it. You are talking about 2 different things and trying to put them in the same argument as equally related and relevant to each other and the argument. Is there a "logical fallacy" for that? I have a link bookmarked that lists a bunch of them but don't feel like reading it now lol.
I agree that the example is, perhaps, not the best. However, you brought the issue up by arguing that stores refusing to sell to people because of racial consideration means limited choices for those people, which is a bad thing. Why are limited choices OK in one context but not the other? You may say "well, you can't force a business to open a branch in a city!" and I would agree. But how is that, fundamentally, different from forcing a business that already has a branch open from doing business with people it does not want to do business with?
We are talking racism and refusing to serve based on race. Which isn't related to whether or not it makes good business sense to open up a Micky Dees in a town of 300. I only brought the Micky Dees thing to begin lead you and show that the "simple solution" of just opening up another store was impractical and wouldn't work if there wasn't a large enough market.
OK. Let's try another example then. I have a store but I refuse any Homo Sapiens members. Is that OK? I mean, after all, I'm discriminating not just against a race, but against an entire species.
-
The laws won't change the people who are incapable of not being racist. At best, they'll continue to be racist, but they'll just hide it. I don't think that hiding such things is something that we, as a society, want.
It doesn't matter what people think and believe, as we cant or do not have the right to fully control that, it matters what they do about it.
No, you assert it's not practical. There's a difference between you asserting that something is impractical and something actually being impractical.
Ok, well either impractical or not practical, it only works on paper, not in practice. (doesn't really work on paper either, but that's ok because its a good idea of what "should" be :))
I agree that the example is, perhaps, not the best. However, you brought the issue up by arguing that stores refusing to sell to people because of racial consideration means limited choices for those people, which is a bad thing. Why are limited choices OK in one context but not the other? You may say "well, you can't force a business to open a branch in a city!" and I would agree. But how is that, fundamentally, different from forcing a business that already has a branch open from doing business with people it does not want to do business with?
Because the business on one hand is deciding not to do business based on race while on the other hand the business is choosing not to do business based on profitability in that they would be doing business with all customers.
OK. Let's try another example then. I have a store but I refuse any Homo Sapiens members. Is that OK? I mean, after all, I'm discriminating not just against a race, but against an entire species.
No problem, good luck with that. : )