rand paul gets an ally!

[SmokeyDan]

Thanks for the suggestion, LF. The article did indeed answer my question.

Since Goebbels refuses to produce the smoking gun to justify his public lynching of Mr. Jensen, I followed the link. Here is a quote from Mr. Jensen:

In an interview with the Rapid City Journal, Phil Jensen stood by those beliefs, saying, “If someone was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and they were running a little bakery for instance, the majority of us would find it detestable that they refuse to serve Blacks, and guess what? In a matter of weeks or so that business would shut down because no one is going to patronize them.”

One more noteworthy point: Rand Paul was not even mentioned in the article, thus making our resident propagandist look like RIU's version of Baghdad Bob.

LULZ

I think that would occur in 90% or more of the communities in the country, even in the south.

However, there are two problems. There are some communities that would have enough members that didn't care, or the flip side have enough enthusiastic racists supporting the business out of zeal, where these businesses wouldn't close.

There are also minorities that do not garner as much sympathy from the general population as blacks do. For instance, I could see business here in my town refusing to serve Muslims wearing traditional clothing (burka) and the like.

I think that business owners should have pretty substantial leeway in who they want to do business with, I don't agree in purposeless discrimination.

 

[desert dude]

I think businesses should discriminate against pasty faced white boys for the next 400 years. Reparations!

That is a sure way to close the racial divide.

 

[UncleBuck]

In an interview with the Rapid City Journal, Phil Jensen stood by those beliefs, saying, “If someone was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and they were running a little bakery for instance, the majority of us would find it detestable that they refuse to serve Blacks, and guess what? In a matter of weeks or so that business would shut down because no one is going to patronize them.”

only problem with that is historical facts (and current day facts).

the businesses that are refusing service to gays are not only still open, they are getting vocal support from people like desertsupremacist.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think businesses should discriminate against pasty faced white boys for the next 400 years. Reparations!

That is a sure way to close the racial divide.

why do you want to make it legal again for businesses to deny service to blacks just because they are black?

 

[desert dude]

only problem with that is historical facts (and current day facts).

the businesses that are refusing service to gays are not only still open, they are getting vocal support from people like desertsupremacist.

"Jim Crow" was a set of laws that forced people to associate with each other as the government saw fit. Jim Crow laws were hugely popular with the fascist segment of society.

Not much has changed.

 

[UncleBuck]

"Jim Crow" was a set of laws that forced people to associate with each other as the government saw fit. Jim Crow laws were hugely popular with the fascist segment of society.

Not much has changed.

wow, you are literally retarded.

answer the question: why do you want to make it legal again for businesses to deny service to blacks just because they are black?

 

[Ra$p0tin]

wow, you are literally retarded.

answer the question: why do you want to make it legal again for businesses to deny service to blacks just because they are black?

Because they could?

 

[Rob Roy]

jesus christ RR, what a broken record..you MUST be single.

I notice you can never refute anything I say and that you run from your own cognitive dissonance as if it were a fat drunk bitch that somehow crept into your bed one night and now wants breakfast and a ride back to the bar.

Yes, I am intentionally repetitive.

 

[Rob Roy]

so we have to force you to serve black people?

you wouldn't ordinarily serve black people?

that property you occupy which was stolen via genocide of the native americans was justly acquired?



you yourself just said the other day that less competition and higher prices and barriers to entry cause harm.

so when you bar blacks from entering and reduce the competitors they can choose from and raise the prices they must pay are you really using your property peacefully, or are you causing harm?

just give the fuck up, you are looking like david duke now. the kinder, gentler face of white supremacy is still the face of white supremacy.

What I would do and what I would use force to make others do with their own property and own body could be two different things dipshit.

Serve black people? "I'm sorry sir we don't have any black people today, can I interest you in a Mongolian? They taste really good and come with a special Genghis hot sauce and an egg roll".

Causing harm ? You can't at the onset of something make a person use their property and their body and then forcefully make them associate with somebody they prefer not to and avoid causing an actionable harm can you? No, since it is a built in assumption of the scenario. Unless the interaction is voluntary and consensual, somebody got forced didn't they?

Since you seem to like forced associations, do you think a third party should arrange other peoples marriages even if one( or both) of the people to be married doesn't want any part of it?


I'm not a white supremacy dick wadd. I favor all people deciding how to use their OWN body and their OWN property, you do not you favor the same policy as people that forcefully arrange marriages.....Meathead.

 

[londonfog]

What I would do and what I would use force to make others do with their own property and own body could be two different things dipshit.

Serve black people? "I'm sorry sir we don't have any black people today, can I interest you in a Mongolian? They taste really good and come with a special Genghis hot sauce and an egg roll".

Causing harm ? You can't at the onset of something make a person use their property and their body and then forcefully make them associate with somebody they prefer not to and avoid causing an actionable harm can you? No, since it is a built in assumption of the scenario. Unless the interaction is voluntary and consensual, somebody got forced didn't they?

Since you seem to like forced associations, do you think a third party should arrange other peoples marriages even if one( or both) of the people to be married doesn't want any part of it?


I'm not a white supremacy dick wadd. I favor all people deciding how to use their OWN body and their OWN property, you do not you favor the same policy as people that forcefully arrange marriages.....Meathead.

I'm glad your thinking is that of few. Now if we just get rid of the few.
If you want to be able to discriminate as to whom you serve ( or not) may I suggest once again to open a PRIVATE CLUB...anything else goes against what is right.

 

[ginwilly]

I'm glad your thinking is that of few. Now if we just get rid of the few.
If you want to be able to discriminate as to whom you serve ( or not) may I suggest once again to open a PRIVATE CLUB...anything else goes against what is right.

RR has never ever even once said he wouldn't serve blacks. You are doing exactly what Buck does, you don't understand or like his position so you change it to something you can attack and then call him racist for it.

Sky called it repetitive, I call it consistent. If anyone thinks his position has anything at all to do with separation of races they are not reading the actual words and are trying to interpret a meaning that isn't there so they can argue.

This is what you and Buck are doing, "you support property rights? that's racist!!". Think about that for a sec. Race, gender, sexual orientation, height, weight, shoe size, hair color, political party affiliation, dog ownership, mental capacity, freckles or hanging toe nails are irrelevant. It's relevant to you, it's you who says you can discriminate, just not for reason X,Y and Z, A through W however are fine because of... property rights.

Like Buck supporting the right of KKK and Westboro Church to exist doesn't mean he supports those entities, just their right to exist, RR's position is very consistent with every thing I've read from him.

Your argument is we must force people against their will to use their property in ways we approve for the betterment of society. His argument is freedom, even freedoms we don't personally approve of is for the betterment of society. If you want to debate on why you think you are right and he is wrong, that might actually be interesting, instead, you misrepresent his position and then attack that wrong representation.

It's really the core of the philosophical difference that could possibly make a good discussion. Is forcing people into actions through government force the best way to advance society or is a non-aggressive freedom of mutual consent the best way to advance society? Wanna try it?

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm glad your thinking is that of few. Now if we just get rid of the few.
If you want to be able to discriminate as to whom you serve ( or not) may I suggest once again to open a PRIVATE CLUB...anything else goes against what is right.

I think you are confused. I support people being free to chose their associations, all people of every persuasion, you do not.

My opinion is that it is wrong to make people associate that do not want to and it is also wrong to prevent people from associating if both parties want to.

You think making people associate is acceptable even if one or both don't want to. How is that NOT a form of enslaving somebody?

Your friend Uncle Buck tries very hard to put lipstick on his coercive methods by pointing to the outcome and ignoring the method will you do the same and ignore the points I make above? I think you will.

 

[Rob Roy]

only problem with that is historical facts (and current day facts).

the businesses that are refusing service to gays are not only still open, they are getting vocal support from people like desertsupremacist.

It is important to define terms when having a discussion.

What does the term "owner" mean to you? To me it means the person(s) that makes determinations about a given thing that belongs to them. Would you agree with that definition or not?

 

[Rob Roy]

wow, you are literally retarded.

answer the question: why do you want to make it legal again for businesses to deny service to blacks just because they are black?

The answer is ....who owns you and your property ? You do, not your neighbor, not a group of your neighbors, not a group of people that employ coercive methods, you do only you do. This is true regardless of your race or sexual preference isn't it?

As long as you stay on your property, you should be free to shit all over your bathroom floor, even though most of us would be disgusted by it, it is after all your bathroom.....stinky.

Forcing people to associate is your method. You like telling others how they will use their body and their property.

Letting people chose their associations based on a mutual desire for that association is my method. I like people to have freedom of choice over their things and their body.

One of the methods above protects freedom, the other takes it away.....thief.

 

[desert dude]

I would like to point out that the news article linked in the original post says the exact opposite of what our resident propagandist claims.

1. The politician in the article says nothing about Rand Paul.
2. The politician in the article denounced racism and speculated that businesses conducted in an openly racist manner would fail.

Why do progressives fear freedom?

Why do you guys openly support racist laws: affirmative action? Why do you think the way to combat racism is to conduct racism?

 

[ElfoodStampo]

I believe if we didn't have laws which identify separate races then things would get better. The laws them selves are inherently racist, because in order for them to make sense or be valid there has to be a difference between races to begin with. Well there is no difference, in my eyes, so why make laws that say there are. All that does is reinforces the people's perception that we are different somehow. It creates an extra barrier to break through.
No one gets to tell you, what to do with your self. Just don't physically harm anyone and or their property.

 

[londonfog]

RR has never ever even once said he wouldn't serve blacks. You are doing exactly what Buck does, you don't understand or like his position so you change it to something you can attack and then call him racist for it.

Sky called it repetitive, I call it consistent. If anyone thinks his position has anything at all to do with separation of races they are not reading the actual words and are trying to interpret a meaning that isn't there so they can argue.

This is what you and Buck are doing, "you support property rights? that's racist!!". Think about that for a sec. Race, gender, sexual orientation, height, weight, shoe size, hair color, political party affiliation, dog ownership, mental capacity, freckles or hanging toe nails are irrelevant. It's relevant to you, it's you who says you can discriminate, just not for reason X,Y and Z, A through W however are fine because of... property rights.

Like Buck supporting the right of KKK and Westboro Church to exist doesn't mean he supports those entities, just their right to exist, RR's position is very consistent with every thing I've read from him.

Your argument is we must force people against their will to use their property in ways we approve for the betterment of society. His argument is freedom, even freedoms we don't personally approve of is for the betterment of society. If you want to debate on why you think you are right and he is wrong, that might actually be interesting, instead, you misrepresent his position and then attack that wrong representation.

It's really the core of the philosophical difference that could possibly make a good discussion. Is forcing people into actions through government force the best way to advance society or is a non-aggressive freedom of mutual consent the best way to advance society? Wanna try it?

By the mere fact he defends someone who wants to deny service base on race is sick. Bottom line !!!!!!

 

[londonfog]

I think you are confused. I support people being free to chose their associations, all people of every persuasion, you do not.

My opinion is that it is wrong to make people associate that do not want to and it is also wrong to prevent people from associating if both parties want to.

You think making people associate is acceptable even if one or both don't want to. How is that NOT a form of enslaving somebody?

Your friend Uncle Buck tries very hard to put lipstick on his coercive methods by pointing to the outcome and ignoring the method will you do the same and ignore the points I make above? I think you will.

you defend the right for people to discriminate baced on race. You might as well be the one denying service as well. Fuck that and all who agree with you.

 

[desert dude]

you defend the right for people to discriminate baced on race. You might as well be the one denying service as well. Fuck that and all who agree with you.

Why do progressives fear freedom?

Why do you guys openly support racist laws such as affirmative action? Why do you think the way to combat racism is to conduct racism by wielding the power of the state?

 

[londonfog]

Why do progressives fear freedom?

Why do you guys openly support racist laws such as affirmative action? Why do you think the way to combat racism is to conduct racism by wielding the power of the state?

affirmative action was used to even the playing field after 300 years of bullshit you snitch