I Apologize to My Fellow Americans

[Galen]

(01-28-2017, 11:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 08:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 08:34 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 03:34 AM)Galen Wrote: A libertarian, other than Gary Johnson, would say that was his right to choose who he does business with.  I would say he is being stupid but again libertarians in general don't see any particular need to protect the stupid from themselves.  Customers can also choose to boycott this baker over the issue and libertarians wouldn't have any particular problem with that either.

Now, I would disagree that Gary Johnson is the only libertarian who is not a bigot.  It is possible to believe in the financial notion of unencumbered free markets and the political principle of small non-interfering government without being a bigot.  In this, I believe Galen should speak for himself.

You really don't understand do you?  Libertarianism recognizes the right of free association which also means that people have the right to choose who they don't associate with.  There is no double think involved here.  It is simply not the government's place to tell people who they may or may not associate with.  If people truly are bigoted then no amount of external force will change this.  Indeed, it will create resentment that will eventually express itself in a violent manner most likely.

I'm not particularly an expert in libertarianism.  I guess I'll have to ask others on the forum who think of themselves as libertarian to confirm or deny Galen's assertion.  Does libertarian thought necessarily demand the right to discriminate?  Is bigotry an inherent aspect of libertarianism?

I think most strict libertarians would tend to side with Galen on this issue:  people should be allowed to conduct business with who they want, without government intervention.  Without laws passed by the state requiring segregation, probably all libertarians believe that competition would have put businesses wasting space on segregated lunch counters out of business, in favor of more efficient businesses that used a single lunch counter for all their customers.

You have it exactly right.  I am sure some business owners would have done segregation on their own or simply excluded blacks but they would have been at a competitive disadvantage versus those who did not.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-27-2017, 11:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You are touching on one aspect of what I call the 'arrow of progress.'  Those favoring the superiority of the whites and maintaining their superior place are of questionable merit.  Those seeking equality for minorities by race, culture and gender are winning a very slow and intermittent victory.  In general, yes, equality has in the long run been making advances over supremacists.

I find myself amused that you can flip it over in your mind, calling the supremacists 'core America' while those working towards equality have been mislabeled as pursing 'identity politics'.  My thought is that those favoring equality went a little too far too fast with a black president, pressure to ban official use of Confederate symbols, efforts on behalf of latinos, muslims and other cultures currently the victims of the supremacists, and attempts to mainline non-traditional gender partnerships.  The supremacists have recently seen too much progress towards equality.  They are ticked off at the moment.  There is a supremacist backlash in progress.  This happens from time to time in America.  Work towards equality will be at a pause for a time.  While I find this offensive, I do not believe the current backlash will continue indefinitely.  After a time of ugliness, work towards equality will resume.

Equality isn't as big of a deal on the Republican side. White supremacy isn't a big deal either (it barely exists nationally). I'd say that the Republican side (red America) is much further ahead in regards to the arrow of progress. The Democratic side has way more issues (identity politics and taxation related issues) for it to get hung up on and bogged down with than the Republican side. BTW, you should drop supremacists for your own sake. What's up with you, every time you show me some positive signs of progress, you step back and resort to the same old liberal bullshit.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public. That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities. I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc... I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2017, 01:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 11:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You are touching on one aspect of what I call the 'arrow of progress.'  Those favoring the superiority of the whites and maintaining their superior place are of questionable merit.  Those seeking equality for minorities by race, culture and gender are winning a very slow and intermittent victory.  In general, yes, equality has in the long run been making advances over supremacists.

I find myself amused that you can flip it over in your mind, calling the supremacists 'core America' while those working towards equality have been mislabeled as pursing 'identity politics'.  My thought is that those favoring equality went a little too far too fast with a black president, pressure to ban official use of Confederate symbols, efforts on behalf of latinos, muslims and other cultures currently the victims of the supremacists, and attempts to mainline non-traditional gender partnerships.  The supremacists have recently seen too much progress towards equality.  They are ticked off at the moment.  There is a supremacist backlash in progress.  This happens from time to time in America.  Work towards equality will be at a pause for a time.  While I find this offensive, I do not believe the current backlash will continue indefinitely.  After a time of ugliness, work towards equality will resume.

Equality isn't as big of a deal on the Republican side. White supremacy isn't a big deal either (it barely exists nationally). I'd say that the Republican side (red America) is much further ahead in regards to the arrow of progress. The Democratic side has way more issues (identity politics and taxation related issues) for it to get hung up on and bogged down with than the Republican side. BTW, you should drop supremacists for your own sake. What's up with you, every time you show me some positive signs of progress, you step back  and resort to the same old liberal bullshit.

It is the red folk who are hung up about muslims and latinos.  The blue folk are trying to integrate those worthy into society as equals.  Granted, there are real economic and security issues involved.  These need to be worked.  However, many on the blue side think these should be worked without blanket discrimination against everyone with a certain culture, religion or skin tone.  The recent travel ban from muslim majority countries might stand as an example of red prejudice.

I see the red ideas of rejecting political correctness and accusing blues of identity politics as doublethink to justify continued prejudice, of keeping members of certain cultures, religions and skin tones outside of their society.

Equality and human rights are not bullshit, at least not to many in blue society.  If you are going to communicate with members of the blue culture, you shouldn't close your mind whenever Enlightenment values are invoked.

In general I favor a gentler more polite conversation.  However, there is nothing gentle or polite about prejudice.  To me, those favoring prejudice have hidden behind politically correct language for too long.  For a bit, I'm inclined to call a spade a spade.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.

You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.

You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

Followers of many political systems declare assorted rights to exist.  Libertarians are one of many such systems to declare their own set of rights.  What ought to be remembered, however, is that the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution followed Enlightenment values, not libertarian.  Libertarians declaring rights to exist is generally cute but harmless.  Children of the Enlightenment declaring rights to exist quite often find that the law is on their side.

The key under modern law is whether one is providing goods or services to the public.  If you are providing goods or services to the public in one's home, one's home has become a public place.  I've got friends running a game store that is struggling enough that they sleep at the store.  That their place of business is also their home does not mean they are free to discriminate.

[Galen]

(01-29-2017, 02:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.

You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

Followers of many political systems declare assorted rights to exist.  Libertarians are one of many such systems to declare their own set of rights.  What ought to be remembered, however, is that the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution followed Enlightenment values, not libertarian.  Libertarians declaring rights to exist is generally cute but harmless.  Children of the Enlightenment declaring rights to exist quite often find that the law is on their side.

The key under modern law is whether one is providing goods or services to the public.  If you are providing goods or services to the public in one's home, one's home has become a public place.  I've got friends running a game store that is struggling enough that they sleep at the store.  That their place of business is also their home does not mean they are free to discriminate.

Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with.  I would recommend Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard which is a very good history of Colonial America through to the early Federal period.  It was actually very well received by historians at the time an well worth your time to read.

The modern liberal bears very little resemblance to the Classical Liberals who really wouldn't have much problem with the Libertarian point of view.  They would libertarianism as a continuation of classical liberal intellectual thought.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with

Well, yes. In the mid 20th Century, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP systematically went after the Jim Crow interpretation of the Constitution. If libertarians are yearning for the good old days of Jim Crow, I'll dissent.

Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal. In his time, white male land owning men were a lot more equal than others. I for one will advocate the principle of equality beyond the extent that existed in colonial times. Progressives tend to believe in progress. Conservatives, not so much. A return to Jim Crow era values is out of the question.

[Galen]

(01-29-2017, 04:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with

Well, yes.  In the mid 20th Century, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP systematically went after the Jim Crow interpretation of the Constitution.  If libertarians are yearning for the good old days, I'll dissent.

Jim Crow was a set of laws passed by the southern states which mandated discrimination.  In short they were specific acts of the government to force businesses to discriminate.  You are now reaching Eric the Obtuse levels of ignorance.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2017, 04:36 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 04:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with

Well, yes.  In the mid 20th Century, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP systematically went after the Jim Crow interpretation of the Constitution.  If libertarians are yearning for the good old days, I'll dissent.

Jim Crow was a set of laws passed by the southern states which mandated discrimination.  In short they were specific acts of the government to force businesses to discriminate.  You are now reaching Eric the Obtuse levels of ignorance.

At the end of the Reconstruction, there was a series of Supreme Court cases which systematically negated the Bill of Rights.  In the mid 20th Century, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP removed these cases from precedent.  Jim Crow indeed included state and local laws, but there was a federal element as well.

Plessy vs. Ferguson is the best known of these cases.  There were five of them in 1883. New Orleans & Texas Railway v Mississippi and Hall v DeCuir are also worth mentioning.

Encyclopedia Britanica Wrote:Civil Rights Cases, five legal cases that the U.S. Supreme Court consolidated (because of their similarity) into a single ruling on October 15, 1883, in which the court declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to be unconstitutional and thus spurred Jim Crow laws that codified the previously private, informal, and local practice of racial segregation in the United States. In an 8–1 decision, the landmark ruling struck down the critical provision in the Civil Rights Act prohibiting racial discrimination in public places (such as hotels, restaurants, theatres, and railroads), what would later be called “public accommodations.” The ruling barred Congress from remedying racial segregation and in effect legalized the notion of “separate but equal” (though the ruling did not use this language) that would predominate in American society until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was a devastating blow to the rights of African Americans. The five consolidated cases were United States v. Stanley, United States v. Ryan, United States v. Nichols, United States v. Singleton, and Robinson and wife v. Memphis & Charleston R.R. Co.

It is possible to question just who hasn't done their homework. During the Reconstruction, when the Black Republicans were attempting to integrate blacks into southern culture on a more or less equal basis, they had control of the state legislatures and US Congress. Equality laws were passed at both state and federal levels. After reconstruction, as Jim Crow was being established, rather than have the legislatures take these laws off the books, quite often the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional. Some of these cases declared that the US Congress and state governments do not have the power to forbid segregation. In this time window at least, it was the Reconstruction legislatures pushing equality laws while later the Jim Crow era US Supreme Court quashed the equality laws and enabled segregation.

Again, Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP in the mid 20th Century pushed a series of court cases which quashed the above precedents.

Again, it wasn't a matter of governments forcing businessmen. The dominant southern culture of the time favored segregation. The segregationists were in charge of the state legislatures, and owned the businesses. It wasn't a question of one element forcing the other. The culture of the time placed race relations as very important, much more important than the difference in profitability of maintaining separate facilities.

You have a nice internally consistent alternate reality going. It just doesn't share all that much with real world history.

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.

And yet, private sales of goods or services can be made to friends.  Networking with friends is a common way to get jobs.  You aren't for full equality; you just draw the line in a different place from Classic-Xer and Galen.

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 02:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 01:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 11:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You are touching on one aspect of what I call the 'arrow of progress.'  Those favoring the superiority of the whites and maintaining their superior place are of questionable merit.  Those seeking equality for minorities by race, culture and gender are winning a very slow and intermittent victory.  In general, yes, equality has in the long run been making advances over supremacists.

I find myself amused that you can flip it over in your mind, calling the supremacists 'core America' while those working towards equality have been mislabeled as pursing 'identity politics'.  My thought is that those favoring equality went a little too far too fast with a black president, pressure to ban official use of Confederate symbols, efforts on behalf of latinos, muslims and other cultures currently the victims of the supremacists, and attempts to mainline non-traditional gender partnerships.  The supremacists have recently seen too much progress towards equality.  They are ticked off at the moment.  There is a supremacist backlash in progress.  This happens from time to time in America.  Work towards equality will be at a pause for a time.  While I find this offensive, I do not believe the current backlash will continue indefinitely.  After a time of ugliness, work towards equality will resume.

Equality isn't as big of a deal on the Republican side. White supremacy isn't a big deal either (it barely exists nationally). I'd say that the Republican side (red America) is much further ahead in regards to the arrow of progress. The Democratic side has way more issues (identity politics and taxation related issues) for it to get hung up on and bogged down with than the Republican side. BTW, you should drop supremacists for your own sake. What's up with you, every time you show me some positive signs of progress, you step back  and resort to the same old liberal bullshit.

It is the red folk who are hung up about muslims and latinos.  The blue folk are trying to integrate those worthy into society as equals.  Granted, there are real economic and security issues involved.  These need to be worked.  However, many on the blue side think these should be worked without blanket discrimination against everyone with a certain culture, religion or skin tone.  The recent travel ban from muslim majority countries might stand as an example of red prejudice.

The "red folk" are hung up about illegal immigration, not "latinos"; it is the blues who incorrectly conflate illegal immigration with latinos, illustrating the racist thinking that perfuses the left.  The top two finishers in the Republican primary after Trump, with a combined "red folk" vote exceeding that of Trump's, were both latino; "red folk" were fine with them because they were US citizens, not illegal immigrants, and because with few exceptions, "red folk" couldn't care less about what race or ethnic group a person is.

Similarly, it is only the blues that see the travel ban as directed at muslims.  In fact, it is directed at countries where there is a lot of terrorist organization activity, to the point where six of the seven have active terrorist insurgencies, with the seventh having destruction of the US as a key foreign policy objective.  These happen to be muslim majority countries because that's where the terrorist activity is these days.  However, there are nonmuslims in these countries who are thus affected by the ban, and there are muslim majority countries that are not affected by the ban.  But all these facts are lost on the left, because their racist outlook causes them to think that "terrorist" means "muslim".

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.

You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

Followers of many political systems declare assorted rights to exist.  Libertarians are one of many such systems to declare their own set of rights.  What ought to be remembered, however, is that the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution followed Enlightenment values, not libertarian.  Libertarians declaring rights to exist is generally cute but harmless.  Children of the Enlightenment declaring rights to exist quite often find that the law is on their side.

The key under modern law is whether one is providing goods or services to the public.  If you are providing goods or services to the public in one's home, one's home has become a public place.  I've got friends running a game store that is struggling enough that they sleep at the store.  That their place of business is also their home does not mean they are free to discriminate.

Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with.  I would recommend Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard which is a very good history of Colonial America through to the early Federal period.  It was actually very well received by historians at the time an well worth your time to read.

I have to differ with you here a bit.  Segregation laws certainly infringed on rights of free association.  Miscegenation laws, which were not limited to the South, were perhaps the most egregious examples, and incidentally show that the government doesn't distinguish between "private" behavior and "public" behavior the way that Bob personally does.

Classical liberalism was indeed the guiding philosophy under which the US was founded; however, it ceased to be the guiding philosophy in the early 20th century with the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2017, 02:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 01:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 11:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You are touching on one aspect of what I call the 'arrow of progress.'  Those favoring the superiority of the whites and maintaining their superior place are of questionable merit.  Those seeking equality for minorities by race, culture and gender are winning a very slow and intermittent victory.  In general, yes, equality has in the long run been making advances over supremacists.

I find myself amused that you can flip it over in your mind, calling the supremacists 'core America' while those working towards equality have been mislabeled as pursing 'identity politics'.  My thought is that those favoring equality went a little too far too fast with a black president, pressure to ban official use of Confederate symbols, efforts on behalf of latinos, muslims and other cultures currently the victims of the supremacists, and attempts to mainline non-traditional gender partnerships.  The supremacists have recently seen too much progress towards equality.  They are ticked off at the moment.  There is a supremacist backlash in progress.  This happens from time to time in America.  Work towards equality will be at a pause for a time.  While I find this offensive, I do not believe the current backlash will continue indefinitely.  After a time of ugliness, work towards equality will resume.

Equality isn't as big of a deal on the Republican side. White supremacy isn't a big deal either (it barely exists nationally). I'd say that the Republican side (red America) is much further ahead in regards to the arrow of progress. The Democratic side has way more issues (identity politics and taxation related issues) for it to get hung up on and bogged down with than the Republican side. BTW, you should drop supremacists for your own sake. What's up with you, every time you show me some positive signs of progress, you step back  and resort to the same old liberal bullshit.

It is the red folk who are hung up about muslims and latinos.  The blue folk are trying to integrate those worthy into society as equals.  Granted, there are real economic and security issues involved.  These need to be worked.  However, many on the blue side think these should be worked without blanket discrimination against everyone with a certain culture, religion or skin tone.  The recent travel ban from muslim majority countries might stand as an example of red prejudice.

I see the red ideas of rejecting political correctness and accusing blues of identity politics as doublethink to justify continued prejudice, of keeping members of certain cultures, religions and skin tones outside of their society.

Equality and human rights are not bullshit, at least not to many in blue society.  If you are going to communicate with members of the blue culture, you shouldn't close your mind whenever Enlightenment values are invoked.

In general I favor a gentler more polite conversation.  However, there is nothing gentle or polite about prejudice.  To me, those favoring prejudice have hidden behind politically correct language for too long.  For a bit, I'm inclined to call a spade a spade.

The blue folk got hung up on them because they were obviously far more important to them. American lives (national security) and American laws (strict enforcement of immigration laws) still didn't seem to matter to them. Whatever, blues can have fun dealing with their own political fallout. Red America ain't going to pay much attention or care much about it either. By the way, calling those who didn't buckle under the liberal use of racism, sexism, fascism, deplorables and so on a bunch of supremacists is bullshit. Bullshit that doesn't belong in a gentler more polite conservation. Where are those feelings coming from anyway? I thought you admitted that the feelings that you use were bullshit. I was glad to see that you finally admitted it because that meant there would less emotional liberal bullshit for me to cut through with. I prefer to cut straight to the chase myself. I see identity politics as best way for blues to keep them all alive and keep their voters from straying myself.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2017, 02:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.

You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

Followers of many political systems declare assorted rights to exist.  Libertarians are one of many such systems to declare their own set of rights.  What ought to be remembered, however, is that the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution followed Enlightenment values, not libertarian.  Libertarians declaring rights to exist is generally cute but harmless.  Children of the Enlightenment declaring rights to exist quite often find that the law is on their side.

The key under modern law is whether one is providing goods or services to the public.  If you are providing goods or services to the public in one's home, one's home has become a public place.  I've got friends running a game store that is struggling enough that they sleep at the store.  That their place of business is also their home does not mean they are free to discriminate.

Bob, my business is not a retail (open to the public) business. I can refuse to do business with SWJ's, assholes of either sex or any race or any political affiliation or any religion for any reason. I have that right and you have that right whether you choose to recognize it and use it or not. You can do business with black preachers who spew racist rhetoric, feed racial resentment and feeling of hatred if you want to because I've got guns that can blow big nasty holes in them and blow an arm/leg off with the pull of a trigger and the right to be unsympathetic for dumb ass blues who support/ politically ignore them. What's happening, America and all its loyal supporters and its true believers are winning an ideological war now to avoid a civil war down the road. You would be wise to start/shift to viewing issues from more of an American's perspective vs a blues perspective. It's up to you. My only interests in liberal Washington, DC are our national monuments.

[Mikebert]

(01-29-2017, 03:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: My only interests in liberal Washington, DC are our national monuments.

What about the Smithsonian museums?  Aerospace is great, so is Natural History, and the American Indian Museum has a great cafeteria.  There is lots of other stuff too, depending on what you are into.

[pbrower2a]

(01-29-2017, 02:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It is the red folk who are hung up about muslims and latinos.  The blue folk are trying to integrate those worthy into society as equals.  Granted, there are real economic and security issues involved.  These need to be worked.  However, many on the blue side think these should be worked without blanket discrimination against everyone with a certain culture, religion or skin tone.  The recent travel ban from muslim majority countries might stand as an example of red prejudice.

I see the red ideas of rejecting political correctness and accusing blues of identity politics as doublethink to justify continued prejudice, of keeping members of certain cultures, religions and skin tones outside of their society.

Equality and human rights are not bullshit, at least not to many in blue society.  If you are going to communicate with members of the blue culture, you shouldn't close your mind whenever Enlightenment values are invoked.

In general I favor a gentler more polite conversation.  However, there is nothing gentle or polite about prejudice.  To me, those favoring prejudice have hidden behind politically correct language for too long.  For a bit, I'm inclined to call a spade a spade.

The blue folk got hung up on them because they were obviously far more important to them. American lives (national security) and American laws (strict enforcement of immigration laws) still didn't seem to matter to them. Whatever, blues can have fun dealing with their own political fallout. Red America ain't going to pay much attention or care much about it either. By the way, calling those who didn't buckle under the liberal use of racism, sexism, fascism, deplorables and so on a bunch of supremacists is bullshit. Bullshit that doesn't belong in a gentler more polite conservation. Where are those feelings coming from anyway? I thought you admitted that the feelings that you use were bullshit. I was glad to see that you finally admitted it because that meant there would less emotional liberal bullshit for me to cut through with. I prefer to cut straight to the chase myself. I see identity politics as best way for blues to keep them all alive and keep their voters from straying myself.

National security involves not only dealing with imminent threats which are hard to detect but al;so in keeping others from having the desire or willingness to do bad things to Americans. We can be firm in hunting down terrorists and keeping them out of our country. But what of home-grown terrorists? On that we may need to rely upon cultural norms that preclude violence. Got a problem with society as a whole? Just do not do violence. Rely upon legitimate authorities. Report people who seem likely to do horrible deeds such as bombings or mass shootings. Maybe the nutty or angry fellow who collects firearms like you might collect recordings of jazz...

Yes, we liberals tend to use such words as racism, sexism, religious bigotry, homophobia, and fascism as 'dog-whistles'... but what is so great about racism, sexism, religious bigotry, homophobia, and fascism anyway?  Overt smears are grossly impolite. but these could simply reflect such a personal weakness as impulse control. Fascism is pure pathology within a society, a hijacking of a national culture for evil ends. Of course bigotry of any kind is deplorable, and fascism is especially so.

Of course we all have a right to our identity. If I have a right -- and I do not make much of being white, as it means little to me -- to my ethnic identity, then so do people who do not look like me to their ethnic identity. I recognize that non-whites have a right to not be stepped upon, and most of us know well enough to not step on people for some ethnic difference (see also religion and gender orientation).

[Eric the Green]

(01-29-2017, 03:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 02:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 01:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Do you discriminate? Have you ever engaged in discrimination and the use of discrimination yourself? I've been posting and dealing with blue discrimination for years so please give me a straight answer. If you can't, I'm going to answer for you and you're not going to like what I'm going have to say about you and the blues in general. Hint. I don't view a group of blues who choose/prefer to hang out with other blues on a internet forum as being abnormal.  It's no more abnormal than a group of blacks who prefer to hang out and talk with blacks in school before classes start or a group of football players or athletes sitting together during lunch period or after school.

I do not provide goods or services to the public.  That being the case, I never ever deny goods or services to minorities.

You seem to be confusing the ability to chose one's friends with refusing to provide goods and services to minorities.  I've no problem with friendships being formed based on culture, gender, social class, religion, etc...  I have real problems when these are used as an excuse to deny goods and services.

You're home is private property. You have the right to decide who enters your home. The right to decide who you're willing to conduct business with in a private setting. The right to decide who you're willing to do work for in a private setting as well. BTW, you have the right to think/believe something is wrong as well.

Followers of many political systems declare assorted rights to exist.  Libertarians are one of many such systems to declare their own set of rights.  What ought to be remembered, however, is that the founding fathers who wrote the US Constitution followed Enlightenment values, not libertarian.  Libertarians declaring rights to exist is generally cute but harmless.  Children of the Enlightenment declaring rights to exist quite often find that the law is on their side.

The key under modern law is whether one is providing goods or services to the public.  If you are providing goods or services to the public in one's home, one's home has become a public place.  I've got friends running a game store that is struggling enough that they sleep at the store.  That their place of business is also their home does not mean they are free to discriminate.

Bob, my business is not a retail (open to the public) business. I can refuse to do business with SWJ's, assholes of either sex or any race or any political affiliation or any religion for any reason. I have that right and you have that right whether you choose to recognize it and use it or not.

You can get sued for that; it's illegal.

Quote: You can do business with black preachers who spew racist rhetoric, feed racial resentment and feeling of hatred if you want to because I've got guns that can blow big nasty holes in them and blow an arm/leg off with the pull of a trigger and the right to be unsympathetic for dumb ass blues who support/ politically ignore them. What's happening, America and all its loyal supporters and its true believers are winning an ideological war now to avoid a civil war down the road.

You are winning now. I'm not sure Trump is a very good bet as a leader for your side. We may come back.

Quote:You would be wise to start/shift to viewing issues from more of an American's perspective vs a blues perspective. It's up to you. My only interests in liberal Washington, DC are our national monuments.

Half of Americans are what we now call "blue"

[Bob Butler 54]

The following is Title II, Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  I have been asserting that if one is providing goods or services to the public, one must serve the entire public without discrimination.  However, such restrictions do not apply to churches, private clubs and private homes.  Section 201 does not mention private homes or churches, which to me says the law doesn't effect private homes or churches.

Anyway, the government spent a lot more than two sentences on section 201.  It does mention what facilities and businesses are covered, and does include an exemption (bolded) for private clubs.

Congress Wrote:TITLE II—INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action :
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facilitv located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A) (i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
© The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, ath- letic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communica- tion among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or pos- session and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points 
in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

Now, Congress spent a lot of words defining exact types of public accommodations, much more than my own 'provides goods or services to the public'.  If anyone wants to pick out types of business not mentioned above, there may well be some other real exemptions.

Note, there are other sections of the Civil Rights Act covering things like employment and voting rights.  I also suspect it has been altered over the years.  However, the above ought to be a good place to start if one wants a reality based discussion.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2017, 12:51 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-29-2017, 03:19 AM)Galen Wrote: Actually up until the mid-twentieth century it was understood that people have the right choose what do to with their property and whom they might choose to do business with.  I would recommend Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard which is a very good history of Colonial America through to the early Federal period.  It was actually very well received by historians at the time an well worth your time to read.

I have to differ with you here a bit.  Segregation laws certainly infringed on rights of free association.  Miscegenation laws, which were not limited to the South, were perhaps the most egregious examples, and incidentally show that the government doesn't distinguish between "private" behavior and "public" behavior the way that Bob personally does.

Classical liberalism was indeed the guiding philosophy under which the US was founded; however, it ceased to be the guiding philosophy in the early 20th century with the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments.

Nitpick.  I agree entirely that the 16th, 17th and 18th amendment marked a significant break in guiding philosophy.  However, at the end of Reconstruction, at the beginning of Jim Crow, the US Supreme Court essentially nullified the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments.  I would suggest this should count as another significant break, another change in the guiding philosophy.  I'd also nominate Thurgood Marshall's efforts in the mid 20th Century to restore the intent of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments as another significant break.

On other threads dealing with other issues I have argued that the Supreme Court ought to honor the wording of the text and the intent of the authors rather than legislating from the bench or applying modern political objectives as trumping rule of law.  I might be the only vaguely blue person on the board who sympathized with Scalia.  I developed this attitude when researching the Jim Crow era Supreme Court cases.  A handful of old men turned the law and the country upside down.

Race has played a large role in US legal theory and precedent.  A huge role.  I suspect there is a conspiracy to avoid examination of the Jim Crow court as the period discredits the Supreme Court as an institution.  I feel that way, anyway.  

Anyway, race and tidal changes in Supreme Court precedent and philosophy are hot button issues for me.