quote:

I'll say it again, taz. Rand said he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act 1964 because of the public accommodations section. Multitudes of idiots said "We don't serve black people."

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I meant "bullshit" as in "bullshit polisci term". I was kind of hoping that there'd be some correct terminology to use to label that "business as usual".

Insofar as the drones, I'm all for using drones for war purposes. It's the domestic surveillance bit that I find blatantly unconstitutional and creepy as hell. Still, I get it that a lot of Americans are fine with warrantless domestic surveillance by big brother. I am not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I'll say it again, taz. Rand said he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act 1964 because of the public accommodations section. Multitudes of idiots said "We don't serve black people."

And the CRA has helped along many others, such as the Disability Act.

This would not lead to just racial discrimination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Firstly, it is a hypothetical not a reality, but certainly a topic for discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

That means one that directly applies to the topic and sense it is being used from a dictionary of the era that the flounders would have used to create the police state.

Bullshit. Corporate socialism Mussolini style has nothing to do with the founding of the United States.

quote:


I cited Wiki . . . . not some demented, delusional sovereign citizen playbook.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

where did you dredge that shit up from? LOL

that is top shelf the worst substantial definition of corporatism I have ever seen.

I cited Wiki . . . . not some demented, delusional sovereign citizen playbook.

quote:

corporatism is the antithesis to individualism when you talk about people and politics.

Of course it is. Corporatism is a form of socialism. TYVM. Like I didn't know. Can't imagine how we would survive without your little tutorials.

much of what I state can be found or derived from here


Here is a copy of the substantial definition.

That means one that directly applies to the topic and sense it is being used from a dictionary of the era that the flounders would have used to create the police state.



See you can tell its precisely on because it says right in the text it references common law.

what ever you do dont break a finger with all that in depth wiki research you are doing.

You can see the pope and the king created the FOUNDATIONS of our law.

The king controlled the dead the pope the living 2 person of the now incorporated body of man.

quote:

w of property rights was the view used to justify slavery (see the Dred Scott US Supreme Court Deci

property rights also are the right to your own body, it is either properly yours or someone elses. Like the state ahem,


and of course we do not have any religion here but all hail statist legislative fiat, we have the right to pray but not exercise hence the american courts do not recognize the right to exercise as stated in the BOR.

So lets wave our flags hua!

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Its shame those folks have to live a in a pluralist, secular democracy -- because it just gunks up their whole belief system.

quote:

Did yo usign up to give away your religious and rights of nature to be "governed" and controlled by legislative fiat?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Did yo usign up to give away your religious and rights of nature to be "governed" and controlled by legislative fiat?

sovereign citizen vomit

quote:

there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, you didnt get that trash from me!

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

A discussion about race descended into chaos at CPAC on Friday when an attendee suggested slaves benefited from being given "food and shelter".

The provocatively titled session, "Trump the Race Card: Are You Sick and Tired of Being Called a Racist and You Know You're Not One", had been billed as offering a way for Republicans to counter suggestions of racism and win over minority voters.

But it fell apart when two people at CPAC, the largest annual gathering of US conservatives, interjected from the floor and and made a series of extreme remarks.

The session's moderator, K Carl Smith, described himself as a "Frederick Douglass Republican", an audience member interjected. "When Douglass came through slavery … he [wrote] a letter to his former slave master and said: 'I forgive you for all the things you did to me'," Smith said.

From the floor, Scott Terry, pictured, asked: "For giving him shelter and food for all those years?"

* * *

After the session, Terry, 30, claimed to the Guardian that he was a direct descendant of former confederate president Jefferson Davis, and that he was "not prepared to throw all my ancestors under the bus".

Asked if he disagreed with slavery, Terry described it as a "complicated issue. I can't make one broad statement that categorically it was evil all the time because that's not true". Asked to clarify his comments about "shelter and food", Terry said: "The slaves couldn't just work without being supplied quarters and all that. And you couldn't just … it's not legal to murder a slave. Slaves even had rights under the old south."

Terry was accompanied by Matthew Heimbach, 21, who decried Martin Luther King as a "Marxist". Heimbach is the president of the White Students Union at Towson University in Maryland, a white nationalist group that has been the source of numerous controversies.

When the chairman made a reference to King, Heimbach shouted from the floor that King was a "Marxist" and said that CPAC was "Surrender Con" because it never supported running a true white conservative as a presidential candidate. "We are losing. We keep running moderate candidates."

Source: The Guardian

Well, I guess GOP strategists have identified two guys not to use in their minority outreach.

As always with a story like this, the question arises: Were these just two isolated loons, or were they saying what others were thinking?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

They were claiming that outreach and diversity in the GOP were disenfranchising young, white southern males. SOURCE

Diversity? In the Republican Party? Really?

There is, and always seems to have, the belief among some people that "rights" are a zero-sum game - that to give or allow someone to have a "right", you have to take a "right" away from someone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Is it just a coincidence that Rand Paul(the gop`s new face)wants to do away with anti-discrimination laws....making it legal to not serve blacks again,making it legal to refuse a meal,a room or a seat on a bus.......again?

Actually, believe it or not, I'd guess that it is coincidence. I could be wrong but I think he's more of a libertarian than a racist. It's hard to pick which is worse... one system enslaves everyone and the other enslaves only people of a certain color. I just think Rand Paul is yet another ideologue who doesn't know and doesn't care about the results of his ideology. He just wants it -- at any cost.

Hiding behind the "libertarian" label won`t help him....or anyone who feels this way.

Getting rid of anti-discrimination laws is not a common theme of libertarians....btw.

Though this may fit in the general "get rid of government" themes they have....the average libertarian does not feel the same as Rand and knows that the world doesn`t opperate in a vacuum.

This is why he and Stassol spent half their words and time claiming not to be racist or that they "likee the out-come" of the civil rights act(s) yada yada.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsNGSCC6aI


Just look how Stossel is all cock-sure he`s right.....he won`t even listen....

Their "let the market decide" nonsense, as to how best to deal with open discrimination, is foolish at best and immoral at worst.They know this....and what it is they`re suggesting.....

It would be open season on almost anyone vulnerable or handicapped or at risk.

Rand is an elected republican.He could have ran in the libertarian party, but chose not to.

And....he`s one of the most popular republicans...... of the extreme "tea-party" republicans.

Even tho the thirsty/awkward Marko is a t-parti-fav and gave the official gop response to the SOTUA,Rand felt it necessary to give his own un-official, t-party response to the President`s address.....

And to the Stossel`s of the world.....we already have mechanisms in place,that let the "market decide" what it is we`re going to accept and reject in America, like social media boycotts and online petitions and other opinion changers ....no thanks to you.

Isn`t it ironic that the very people most apposed to the successful social media boycotts,republicans,are the one`s suggesting they replace the civil rights act?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Their "let the market decide" nonsense, as to how best to deal with open discrimination, is foolish at best and immoral at worst.They know this....and what it is they`re suggesting.....

I'd be so tempted to believe you but that's the whole gig with libertarians... They believe in economic warfare but no other kind. So "let the market decide" is their chosen field of contest. They KNOW such a thing is foolish at best and immoral at worst... and this is one of the smaller ways that'd be true.

I agree with you though. I was looking at Ron earlier and the conclusion I came to is that it didn't really matter why you wanted to enslave humanity. The fact that you do is reprehensible enough. Rand is simply a chip off the ol' block.

PS: I don't really care what ticket they come under. I just care what philosophy they espouse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I'd be so tempted to believe you but that's the whole gig with libertarians... They believe in economic warfare but no other kind. So "let the market decide" is their chosen field of contest. They KNOW such a thing is foolish at best and immoral at worst... and this is one of the smaller ways that'd be true.

Before he was elected, Rand Paul was on with Rachel Maddow. He stated his beef with the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act. He felt that a pub owner should be able to choose who to serve, or not. So for Rand propeerty is more important than people. Not a far step from the plantation massa who considered people property.

But, a pub owner can decide who to serve or not serve already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
And yes, Libertarians are generally not against rights laws, because they realize that the world is not an ideal state, where everyone plays by the rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
And yes, Libertarians are generally not against rights laws, because they realize that the world is not an ideal state, where everyone plays by the rules.

Your description of "libertarians" does not align with the Libertarian Party.

2.0 Economic Liberty
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

In other words, to be a libertarian (in the US) is to agree to the enslavement of virtually all of us. They wish to provide the already powerful with unfettered access to accumulate yet more power. Oh, as an added bit of amusement, they feel that while they enslave us all on the economic battlefield it's terribly unfair of anyone to fight on the physical battlefield. In other words, they claim the battle field they hold dominion over and eschew the rest.

I love the whole thing in a sickened sort of way.

edited to add
The only right they recognize is "property rights". They do not call for any human rights. Really that says it all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Most libertarians I know as people recognize that while the government that governs least governs best

quote:

they also realize the failings of pure libertarianism, that it doesn't work, never has, never will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I meant "bullshit" as in "bullshit polisci term". I was kind of hoping that there'd be some correct terminology to use to label that "business as usual".

Insofar as the drones, I'm all for using drones for war purposes. It's the domestic surveillance bit that I find blatantly unconstitutional and creepy as hell. Still, I get it that a lot of Americans are fine with warrantless domestic surveillance by big brother. I am not.

Warrantless domestic surveillance is a whole other topic, isn't it? But you make a lot of questionable assumptions above. Firstly, it is a hypothetical not a reality, but certainly a topic for discussion. So, to say a lot of Americans are fine with it and to use the big brother term is all baseless and sophomoric imo.

Secondly, our Constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. The Court has decided what is unreasonable in different situations. It is not unreasonable por ejemplo to search student lockers for drugs or weapons if school administrators have received a tip. It is not unreasonable to search a car for drugs at a traffic stop if the driver was actiing odd or belligerent, I don't think.

So, do the police need a warrant to search a neighborhood in their patrol cars if a fugitive is suspected in the area? Are they prohibited from using camcorders mounted throughout the neighborhood? Are they prohibited searching with a helocopter? A drone? What is unreasonable about using a drone? Has the drone invaded anyone's castle or domain? Where is the intrusion? Where has privacy been invaded? Police Departments have applied to DHS for permission to fly drones in their jurisdictions. We will have to wait for the Court to decide. That's how it works down here and up north also I bet.

Out for the evening.

ciao