Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by Ziner » Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm
by jb » Fri May 21, 2010 4:33 pm
by Ziner » Fri May 21, 2010 4:48 pm
jb wrote:Z - legally, or on some sorta of ideal plain of ethical creation?
by jb » Fri May 21, 2010 5:18 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.
by hermanfontenot » Fri May 21, 2010 6:39 pm

by peeker643 » Fri May 21, 2010 6:50 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Fri May 21, 2010 7:02 pm
by Ziner » Fri May 21, 2010 7:07 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.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Fri May 21, 2010 7:19 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?
by jb » Sat May 22, 2010 12:00 pm
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.
by hermanfontenot » Sat May 22, 2010 6:16 pm
jb wrote:Jesse, man, your take on history are on par with SD's on the Association.
That is all.

by Orenthal » Sat May 22, 2010 6:21 pm
by jb » Sun May 23, 2010 10:51 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.
by jb » Sun May 23, 2010 10:54 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.
by Orenthal » Sun May 23, 2010 1:47 pm
by hermanfontenot » Sun May 23, 2010 4:09 pm
jb wrote:aren't worth addressing in content.

by FUDU » Sun May 23, 2010 5:37 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.
by TBigz » Wed May 26, 2010 1:27 am
by noles1 » Thu May 27, 2010 2:40 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.

by aoxo1 » Fri May 28, 2010 12:43 pm
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.
by Orenthal » Fri May 28, 2010 4:52 pm

by Cerebral_DownTime » Sat May 29, 2010 12:52 am
Ziner wrote:FWIW Maddow's show is a million times better than KO's nightly douchefest.
by Ziner » Sat May 29, 2010 12:59 am
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.
by jb » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:37 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests