Text Size

No Holds Barred

Maddow v. Rand Paul

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Ziner » Fri May 21, 2010 3:16 pm

http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/articl ... 2F19485308

I know it is a long video, but if we are going to have an intelligent conversation on this please watch it instead of reading the snippets. Or at least fast forward to their debate.

Does a business have the right to be racist? If not, does a business have the right to tell you not to bring your gun (a federally protected right) in to their business? Why, why not?

FWIW Maddow's show is a million times better than KO's nightly douchefest.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby jb » Fri May 21, 2010 3:33 pm

Z - legally, or on some sorta of ideal plain of ethical creation?
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Ziner » Fri May 21, 2010 3:48 pm

jb wrote:Z - legally, or on some sorta of ideal plain of ethical creation?


Philosophically and in a way politically. Rand brings up a good point if legally you can't segregate your restaurant because of the civil rights act, how as a business can you legally tell someone they cant bring a gun to a private business and ignore the 2nd amendment? Seems as if we want to give the business the power when it is something some agree with and don't want to give the business the freedom on something we don't.

Essentially how is it not a hypocritical stance, and if you are ok with it how can you explain the rationale why someone agrees with it.

I don't know maybe it wont spark much debate, I just liked their debate and thought it was worth sharing. Probably too deep for a Friday.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby jb » Fri May 21, 2010 4:18 pm

Ziner wrote:
jb wrote:Z - legally, or on some sorta of ideal plain of ethical creation?


Philosophically and in a way politically. Rand brings up a good point if legally you can't segregate your restaurant because of the civil rights act, how as a business can you legally tell someone they cant bring a gun to a private business and ignore the 2nd amendment? Seems as if we want to give the business the power when it is something some agree with and don't want to give the business the freedom on something we don't.

Essentially how is it not a hypocritical stance, and if you are ok with it how can you explain the rationale why someone agrees with it.

I don't know maybe it wont spark much debate, I just liked their debate and thought it was worth sharing. Probably too deep for a Friday.


On the ideal plane, it is a bitch to compete philosophically with libertarianism on just about any issue. Until your ass is exploited like a mofo in reality.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby hermanfontenot » Fri May 21, 2010 5:39 pm

One of the biggest problems the Right has had for the last 40 years in this country is constantly being on the defensive regarding race. They have to learn to tackle race-loaded issues head-on without fear of name-calling or shaming language. Look, leftists think rightists are racists regardless of how often they apologize for the sins of others. Might as well not worry about it.

Re: the issue of the Civil Rights Act... in my opinion the main issue of institutionalized Southern racism circa 1964 wasn't that private business chose not to serve blacks. It was that the governments in that region, state and local, basically ruled black Americans- citizens of this country- as a terror state. They terrorized black Americans into not exercising their most basic rights as Americans. THAT, not the lunch counter at Woolworth, was the real rub.

I personally have no problems with businesses discriminating on whatever grounds they choose. If Clarence Washington wants to open a rib joint and wants to bar my pale ass from entering based on his own racial piddacillos, that's fine by me. His business, his money, his prerogative.
User avatar
hermanfontenot
History Buff
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:52 am
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Big Z
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby peeker643 » Fri May 21, 2010 5:50 pm

I think it's as simple as the fact that Plaxico Burress couldn't shoot himself or anyone else with a racist in his pocket and PacMan Jones's posse wouldn't have paralyzed a scrip club employee by shooting a racist at him.

I know that's not the philosophical debate you're looking for. But even as a proponent of the right to bear arms I think it simply comes down to an issue of public safety.

Shouting 'fire' in the theater and all that.
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22781
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Fri May 21, 2010 6:02 pm

Bottomline, If someone opens up a public business and I want to go in, I will it's not like they would stop me. I can do as I please i'm an American. Now if it's a private club, then I understand.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Ziner » Fri May 21, 2010 6:07 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Bottomline, If someone opens up a public business and I want to go in, I will it's not like they would stop me. I can do as I please i'm an American. Now if it's a private club, then I understand.


What is a public business? Arent businesses private?
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Fri May 21, 2010 6:19 pm

Ziner wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Bottomline, If someone opens up a public business and I want to go in, I will it's not like they would stop me. I can do as I please i'm an American. Now if it's a private club, then I understand.


What is a public business? Arent businesses private?


I'm talking stuff like a bar, club, or restaurant. You can't keep me out because i'm white, i'll walk right through that door. And we have anti-discrimination laws to make sure I can't be turned for a job because the color of my skin. Now it obviously still happens, and employer can give any reason to why they denied employment.

Now a private club (Moose Lodges, Hells Angels, or Rotarians) can do as they please.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby jb » Sat May 22, 2010 11:00 am

hermanfontenot wrote:
Re: the issue of the Civil Rights Act... in my opinion the main issue of institutionalized Southern racism circa 1964 wasn't that private business chose not to serve blacks. It was that the governments in that region, state and local, basically ruled black Americans- citizens of this country- as a terror state. They terrorized black Americans into not exercising their most basic rights as Americans. THAT, not the lunch counter at Woolworth, was the real rub.


Jesse, man, your take on history are on par with SD's on the Association.

That is all.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby hermanfontenot » Sat May 22, 2010 5:16 pm

jb wrote:Jesse, man, your take on history are on par with SD's on the Association.

That is all.


Somehow, some way, I'll have to live with your disapproval, JB. God knows how I'll do it, but I'm going to try.
User avatar
hermanfontenot
History Buff
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:52 am
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Big Z
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Orenthal » Sat May 22, 2010 5:21 pm

JB is right on... The problem with libertarianism is that when you logically extend some of their beliefs, at times they lead to a basic, state of nature, where we have to rely on a majority of people to oppose abhorrent behavior.

That type of freedom is what causes Jim Crow, the majority of people did not find that behavior abhorrent.
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby jb » Sun May 23, 2010 9:51 am

hermanfontenot wrote:
jb wrote:Jesse, man, your take on history are on par with SD's on the Association.

That is all.


Somehow, some way, I'll have to live with your disapproval, JB. God knows how I'll do it, but I'm going to try.



This garbage don't confront me none.

Just thst your knowledge base and lack of analytic ability conitunously crank out shit takes in this regard that aren't worth addressing in content.

You might just want to learn something before you spew to be taken seriously.

But trust me, I care less than you about that, and I know you don't care.
Last edited by jb on Sun May 23, 2010 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby jb » Sun May 23, 2010 9:54 am

Orenthal wrote:JB is right on... The problem with libertarianism is that when you logically extend some of their beliefs, at times they lead to a basic, state of nature, where we have to rely on a majority of people to oppose abhorrent behavior.



And hows that work out for us on TCF boards, let alone society?

:lmfao:

(PS - you get it OJ. I might tweak to suggest "participate voluntarily in civil behavior, but close enough for accord. )
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Orenthal » Sun May 23, 2010 12:47 pm

...and Maddow is still fuck ugly.
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby hermanfontenot » Sun May 23, 2010 3:09 pm

jb wrote:aren't worth addressing in content.


Well I understand how much easier it is to tell someone he's full of shit than to actually explain why, Jim.

But hey, maybe you can go to Mitch and have him run me like BW. That might suit you.
User avatar
hermanfontenot
History Buff
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:52 am
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Big Z
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby FUDU » Sun May 23, 2010 4:37 pm

jb wrote:
hermanfontenot wrote:
Re: the issue of the Civil Rights Act... in my opinion the main issue of institutionalized Southern racism circa 1964 wasn't that private business chose not to serve blacks. It was that the governments in that region, state and local, basically ruled black Americans- citizens of this country- as a terror state. They terrorized black Americans into not exercising their most basic rights as Americans. THAT, not the lunch counter at Woolworth, was the real rub.


Jesse, man, your take on history are on par with SD's on the Association.

That is all.

I look at an issue like this very much like I look at something like abortion. I'm vehemently against abortion, however b/c I know I will never put myself into a position where abortion will be a decision in my life I don't put too much energy or judgment into caring or disallowing others to make those decisions for themselves. Same with federal income tax for me, I truly believe it is not a legal requirement that we citizens must comply with, however I know I am never not going to pay them so due to the reality of the country we live in I say feh.

So honestly, I don't want to see businesses practicing their utmost freedom by servicing only whites, only blacks or only whomever based on some criteria no living human has control over anyway. At the same time I also know I wouldn't frequent and support those type of businesses, so in the end if anybody else is OK with it, wants it and allows it to happen, that is on them not me, and I will continue going about my life as I would have either way.

IOW, in short, nobody gives less of a fuck than me.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13358
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby TBigz » Wed May 26, 2010 12:27 am

Big Frickin deal MSNBC doesn't even deserve to be on television there viewer ratings are minuscule. Rachel Madcow needs some man meat.
TBigz
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:42 am
Favorite Player: Josh Cribbs
Least Favorite Player: Ben Rothlisberger

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby noles1 » Thu May 27, 2010 1:40 pm

TBigz wrote:Big Frickin deal MSNBC doesn't even deserve to be on television there viewer ratings are minuscule. Rachel Madcow needs some man meat.


Man, that's a brutal take. Ratings? Madcow? Man meat?

I'm just doing some time-killing over lunch here and normally wouldn't point it out. That said, you're a newbie and it should be stated.
Playing here is the closest thing to heaven. Really, I mean it's amazing to be in a place where the fans truly cherish their football team and stick behind them win or lose. We players love them, too. I feel a sense of accomplishment playing here, we are a special breed of football players with a great opportunity." ~ tOSU LB Brian Rolle
User avatar
noles1
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Clarion, PA
Favorite Player: Jason Kipnis
Least Favorite Player: Mark May's Parents

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby aoxo1 » Fri May 28, 2010 11:43 am

noles1 wrote:
TBigz wrote:Big Frickin deal MSNBC doesn't even deserve to be on television there viewer ratings are minuscule. Rachel Madcow needs some man meat.


Man, that's a brutal take. Ratings? Madcow? Man meat?

I'm just doing some time-killing over lunch here and normally wouldn't point it out. That said, you're a newbie and it should be stated.

Don't fuck with this guy. He is a STATE CHAMPION and part of SAVAGE NATION.
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Orenthal » Fri May 28, 2010 3:52 pm

Oh Yeeeeeeeeah!
Image
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Fri May 28, 2010 11:52 pm

Ziner wrote:FWIW Maddow's show is a million times better than KO's nightly douchefest.



She's smart and very fair to Republicans she has on the show. Tim Pawlenty has been on many times and I enjoy their debates. I know he took flak from some on the right for even going on her show.

Her debates with Pat Buchanan were also really good.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby Ziner » Fri May 28, 2010 11:59 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:
Ziner wrote:FWIW Maddow's show is a million times better than KO's nightly douchefest.



She's smart and very fair to Republicans she has on the show. Tim Pawlenty has been on many times and I enjoy their debates. I know he took flak from some on the right for even going on her show.

Her debates with Pat Buchanan were also really good.



I agree I think she is a very fair interview. I think it is good for these shmucks to be in the fire by the other side. I am slowly starting to appreciate, if not enjoy her show.

Tussin.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Maddow v. Rand Paul

Unread postby jb » Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:37 am

The dictionary definition of Irony:

A thread on whether business owners bear any responsibility to a greater community on a site that is essetially an offshoot of a bunch of Cleveland Browns fans with a bunch of Browns fans supporting this notion to the hilt.

Think about it.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward


Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests