Obama Signs Westminster Abbey Guest Book…

[Hawk]

I get it, Racism in the private sector is your version of freedom.

One could argue that forcing somebody on their own property to serve a person from another race whether they want to or not under penalty of law is a more extreme form of racism and hypocrisy.

Wow... Ah...Only if your the owner and NOT the patron...

[Hawk]

Never mind your condescending crap about logic as it was damn spin...

Hmmmm...condescending...I usually hear that word when somebody doesn't have any idea what I'm talking about.

I'm sure that Paul (Rainey) could explain it better than I...that's his field.

I understood everything you talked about. It is either your own naivete or your illogical conclusion, that doesn't recognize (or pretends not to recognize) the enabling aspect of allowing private sector racism relative to Libertarianism.

[lonewolf]

I get it, Racism in the private sector is your version of freedom.

One could argue that forcing somebody on their own property to serve a person from another race whether they want to or not under penalty of law is a more extreme form of racism and hypocrisy.

Wow... Ah...Only if your the owner and NOT the patron...

In a true state of freedom, only the owner of a private property should determine who shall have the PRIVILEGE...repeat...PRIVILEGE of entering their private property. Nobody has the God given right to enter another's private property and forcing them to accept persons solely on the basis of race is by definition racist.

While the property owner may in fact have acted in a racist manner, his denying the privilege of entry to his property does not violate anybody's rights; however, forcing the property owner to accept entry to his private property does in fact violate his human right to private property.

Human rights must be allowed to trump racism.

[Hawk]

One could argue that forcing somebody on their own property to serve a person from another race whether they want to or not under penalty of law is a more extreme form of racism and hypocrisy.

Wow... Ah...Only if your the owner and NOT the patron...

In a true state of freedom, only the owner of a private property should determine who shall have the PRIVILEGE...repeat...PRIVILEGE of entering their private property. Nobody has the God given right to enter another's private property and forcing them to accept persons solely on the basis of race is by definition racist.

While the property owner may in fact have acted in a racist manner, his denying the privilege of entry to his property does not violate anybody's rights; however, forcing the property owner to accept entry to his private property does in fact violate his human right to private property.

Human rights must be allowed to trump racism.

You mean one's rights allow racism. Totlly sucks !!!!! Spin all you want...

[lonewolf]

Never mind your condescending crap about logic as it was damn spin...

Hmmmm...condescending...I usually hear that word when somebody doesn't have any idea what I'm talking about.

I'm sure that Paul (Rainey) could explain it better than I...that's his field.

I understood everything you talked about. It is either your own naivete or your illogical conclusion, that doesn't recognize (or pretends not to recognize) the enabling aspect of allowing private sector racism relative to Libertarianism.

There are several possible outcomes and scenarios that may happen with the removal of the so called "civil rights" laws. The only one that has a 100% probability of happening is that property owners will have their human right to private property restored and nobody will lose any human rights.

[Hawk]

Hmmmm...condescending...I usually hear that word when somebody doesn't have any idea what I'm talking about.

I'm sure that Paul (Rainey) could explain it better than I...that's his field.

I understood everything you talked about. It is either your own naivete or your illogical conclusion, that doesn't recognize (or pretends not to recognize) the enabling aspect of allowing private sector racism relative to Libertarianism.

There are several possible outcomes and scenarios that may happen with the removal of the so called "civil rights" laws. The only one that has a 100% probability of happening is that property owners will have their human right to private property restored and nobody will lose any human rights.

"Nobody will loose any human rights" ? And you already admitted that it would happen in the South and you suggested I shouldn't care about what happens down South ? Are you drinking or using illegal drugs ?

[lonewolf]

I understood everything you talked about. It is either your own naivete or your illogical conclusion, that doesn't recognize (or pretends not to recognize) the enabling aspect of allowing private sector racism relative to Libertarianism.

There are several possible outcomes and scenarios that may happen with the removal of the so called "civil rights" laws. The only one that has a 100% probability of happening is that property owners will have their human right to private property restored and nobody will lose any human rights.

"Nobody will loose any human rights" ? And you already admitted that it would happen in the South and you suggested I shouldn't care about what happens down South ? Are you drinking or using illegal drugs ?

No, I said that racism would probably happen in the south and implied that it would be in the form of segregation. Segregation on private property may be racist, but it does not deny anyone their human rights. Nobody has the right to enter private property that does not belong to them.

Bill, you seem to be confusing racism (or the prevention of it) with human rights. They are not the same thing.

[Hawk]

There are several possible outcomes and scenarios that may happen with the removal of the so called "civil rights" laws. The only one that has a 100% probability of happening is that property owners will have their human right to private property restored and nobody will lose any human rights.

"Nobody will loose any human rights" ? And you already admitted that it would happen in the South and you suggested I shouldn't care about what happens down South ? Are you drinking or using illegal drugs ?

No, I said that racism would probably happen in the south and implied that it would be in the form of segregation. Segregation on private property may be racist, but it does not deny anyone their human rights. Nobody has the right to enter private property that does not belong to them.

Bill, you seem to be confusing racism (or the prevention of it) with human rights. They are not the same thing.

I clearly understand both and they are intertwined. If one is not allowed on a bus or into a restaurant because human rights dictates the owner can deny a human being because of his race, that is enabling racism.

If someone has a business open to the public, any race should qualify. No one should have the right to deny a race in a restaurant open to the public. I understand the reasoning you present, it just doesn't belong in today's American society.

Spin it any way you want, it is not a good thing. It will not make us a better country. Or do you believe enabling racism would make for a better America ?

[f.sciarrillo]

How does not allowing someone on private property make someone a racist?

[Hawk]

How does not allowing someone on private property make someone a racist?

If you own a business like a restaurant and you do not allow blacks, what are you ?

[Banned]

Bill must be a racist, using his own logic. He does not have any black musicians in his band.

[sstuckey]

How does not allowing someone on private property make someone a racist?

If you own a business like a restaurant and you do not allow blacks, what are you ?

How did this become a racist issue? Not once did I read ANYONE say that didn't want a particular race on their property...so why the hell would you even bring something up like this?! NOTHING good can come from this discussion, and throwing around the term, or calling someone a racist, is only going to cause alot of unnecessary tension.

[Gallowglass]

Bill, you're really worrying me here...I love you to death man, but you're really saying some dangerous things here. Private property rights are at THE FOUNDATION of civil liberties. I think we can all agree that any racist or discriminatory practices are terribly disgusting, but what you don't see here is that for the government to dictate our choices by failing to recognize private property rights is far more debilitating in the long run and is also ultimately more discriminatory. I hate to say this but the ideas you are championing are highly offensive and really sound a lot like the reasoning used by the totalitarian Fascists and Communists in the last century to justify their twisted social engineering.

Another thing that is worrying me is the way you envision human nature. You always seem to conclude that without some overriding nanny state we would all be jumping at the bit to slit each other's throats whenever we weren't too comatose on "illegal drugs" to move. Why are you so afraid? Do you really see humanity that way? Is that how you are inside? I know that's not the way you are. You are a great human being. I think the great majority of humanity is willing to at least live and let live. If that is the way you see human nature, why should we entrust all this power to the government? What makes them so damn altruistic? The worst wars and atrocities that have ever been committed in history have occurred since the rise of the "nation state". What makes you so sure that it is the state that should wield so much power? Shouldn't the law err on the side of WE THE PEOPLE to determine our individual destinies instead of the State?

[lonewolf]

Bill, you seem to be confusing racism (or the prevention of it) with human rights. They are not the same thing.

I clearly understand both and they are intertwined. If one is not allowed on a bus or into a restaurant because human rights dictates the owner can deny a human being because of his race, that is enabling racism.

If someone has a business open to the public, any race should qualify. No one should have the right to deny a race in a restaurant open to the public. I understand the reasoning you present, it just doesn't belong in today's American society.

Spin it any way you want, it is not a good thing. It will not make us a better country. Or do you believe enabling racism would make for a better America ?

Of course I don't like racism...those so-called "civil-rights" laws do not prevent racism. Racism still exists and its still perfectly legal because racism is not an action or a denial of rights...racism is a thought.

Racism in and of itself is NOT a violation of human rights until somebody does harm to a person. Denying somebody entry to private property does no harm to a person.

Do you go by the old mantra of "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it?" Does this extend to racist remarks? If so, you are enabling racism! If it doesn't include racist remarks, you are extending fascism to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Why then does this not apply to private property rights? I would have thought that amendments 3, 4 & 9 are just as valid as 1.

SO, let me ask you:

Why do you support state fascism in a failed attempt to quell racism even though nobody's human rights are being protected?

or:

Why do you support state fascism so that you may guarantee minorities the PRIVILEGE of visiting a private restaurant?

[sstuckey]

Actually it sounds like the "Cocteau plan" in the movie "Demolition Man". What was once a laughable pun, sounds more and more like today's America.

Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat, bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence.

So how much longer until your twisted perspective forces me to have to apply for my chocolate license?

[songsmith]

[Should gay people be allowed to marry?

Yes, assuming that their church says its OK.

Government should not recognize or have a preference for a religious union of any kind, including traditional marriage.[/quote]

Govt does recognize marriage, and I had to go to a courthouse to make it legal. And why is it more important for religion (a belief system that has no constitutional basis, as our Constitution denies govt a say in religion, nor religion a say in govt) to give approval than for marriage to be a legal union? Once again, libertarianism gets right of final approval.

Should women have a right to choose termination of a pregnancy?

Yes, but only if their state law permits it.

Each state should be allowed to decide the legality of abortion for itself through its own legislature.[/quote]

And if Pennsylvania votes to support women's choices with their own uteri, that will be the end of the argument, correct? The protests will stop, the bombings, the harrassment... the wingers will all lay down their arms because they patriots. Mm-Hmmm.

Is Islam detrimental to our way of life?

Yes.

My personal opinion is that [/quote]

Your opinion isn't the main importance. You're basing everything on "constitutionality."
Islam is a religion, and every bit as "true" or "real" as Christianity. Both are based on the God of Abraham (as is Judaism), and Muslims have EQUAL right under the Constitution to exercise their faith, no matter how much anyone on either side objects. Muslims kill Christians... and Christians kill Muslims. I won't even post a number, I'll let you look up how many casualties we've had in Afghanistan, versus how many we've inflicted, then remind you that the vast majority of American soldiers and commanders are Christian. Islam has a right to exist, whether you approve or not.

Should Americans be allowed to keep our public lands pristine and free of privatization and stripping of natural resources, if that's how they vote?

Yes for publicly owned property.[/quote]

That's all I asked for, yes or no. It is, or is not. No qualifiers to whether you personally, or your peer group approve. I respect your opinion, I really do, but my original point was that libertarians filter everything through their personal lens, and America has a LOT of personal lenses. We are less a collection of individuals than a collective society, for purposes of governing. Thus majority rules. I get that Libertarianism values the individual over the society, and continue to point out that we live in a nation, not a loose group of 300 million individuals... and that we can't all live by each Libertarian's rules.

Do Americans have the right to create and fund a healthcare delivery system for the poor and elderly, if that's how they vote?

NO...unless the vote you speak of is for a constitutional amendment that makes it speci fically constitutional. As it stands, this is the purview of the states.?[/quote]

How long has Medicare and Medicaid been around? And now, suddenly it's the cause of the end of America? Americans could have defeated these programs at their inception, or at any point in their history. Perhaps they see that widowed grannies shouldn't die for lack of healthcare, because there's enough wealth to pay for it. We're to give big tax breaks, or even allow business entities to not pay AT ALL, to the loss of trillions in revenue over time, but Ne-Ne should have thought about her old age when she was cleaning houses, and gotten a better job.
Also, if a constitutional amendment was raised and approved by a vote, you would fully support it, and not fight for repeal? I'll take a big lung-hit of whatever you're toking, because that stuff's pure sunshine. Any mention of such a vote would result in the fringer-media calling down Armageddon. But it would be entertaining. And it would pass.

Do Americans have the right to form any entity that would directly compete with business, if it provided needed service at a lesser personal cost, or protected them from exploitation or profiteering?

NO...unless the vote you speak of is for a constitutional amendment that makes it specifically constitutional. (See Post Office)[/quote]

Gosh, would that be the Post Office that will deliver your First Class letter in 2-3 days for 44 cents, or the corporation that does it in 5 days for $7.99? Your share of the cost per year of the Post Office is far less than the cost of sending one letter via UPS, and no mobsters profit from it.

Does the president have to constantly provide additional forms of ID, because you personally do not believe him?

No.
[/quote]

That's all you needed, not the fully-loaded wistfully-dreaming-of-impeachment response. Where was the call for Bush's impeachment? Does impeachment only apply to non-conservative presidents?

If Americans, as prescribed in the Constitution, use their vote to empower their representative gov't in a liberal way, does that vote count, or is it illegitimate?

Yes, of course the people's vote counts as far as who goes to DC to represent them.

That doesn't give the idiots they voted for the power to run roughshod over the Constitution and enact any kind of legislation they please.[/quote]

...And this is where the final-approval point hits this issue. Only a Libertarian has the authority to claim whether something is constitutional, as they alone are qualified to define the Constitution. Affordable Healthcare Act is not constitutional, but the Patriot Act is. Anchor babies are not constitutional, but stopping Latinos and checking ID's is (14th Amendment vs. 4th Amendment). It's pick-and-choose, and only the Libertarian can pick or choose. Not buying what you're peddling.

[In typical liberal fashion, your questions were both loaded and/or had an illogical context. I suggest that you apply for a position with a major network polling team, preferably NBC. I hope that my attempts to explain my view following my answers are helpful in providing liberal progressives a better insight on libertarians. Its not so much a Darwinistic view as it is a view of the role of government and also which government.

As per norm, your responses all supposed that I'm bound by your "logic." I will call a spade a spade, and you're a spade. The concept that the only applicable logic is the logic you provide... well, that only reiterates exactly what I posted originally, and I thank you for being the second corroborating respondent, albeit with a more intellectual response. Also, Ayn Rand-inspired Objectivism IS Darwinism. "If you do not achieve, you should not be taken care of by society." Funny how, if your parents have enough money, you are rich, and therefore, an achiever, whether you worked for it, or a large group of low-wage laborers worked for it in your stead. Darwinism, pure and simple.

[sstuckey]

I'd like to tackle what is apparently the most important issue facing Americans today: Online poker.

First I'll address my own take on this provocative and profound ban on online poker: I don't give a f**k if you can play online poker.
Now that that's out of the way, if it's about anything but money, you can play all the poker you want at home or with your friends, so it's not like poker is outlawed. If it is money, there are poker leagues in many bars, and charity tournaments where you can win some $$. But if you think the govt should let you earn untraceable money playing poker online, tough crap, we all pay taxes. There's a really good reason poker is watched so closely, organized crime is all about gambling because the money is untraceable. Doing it on a website opens up the entire planet to launderable money, and the more that goes through a website, the more a druglord or terrorist can clean up his dirty money. You have to open up the field of view sometimes. It's not about somebody winning a few bucks, it's about somebody hiding a few million. You can boo-hoo about the govt, but you should be boo-hooing about the people who ruined it for you: people who make millions from your little table game. It's like blaming the cops for stopping you at a DUI checkpoint. If drunk people wouldn't kill other drivers, they'd have never stopped you in the first place, but they do.

How exactly is it untraceable? It comes directly from and goes directly into my bank acct. It's not only traceable but it's also taxable. What's next...ban Ebay?!!

I'm still patiently awaiting your response to why the money isn't traceable. And would also like to point out that the current issue against online gambling is that in this time of economic crisis people are turning to "luck" to help...aka online gambling, and further putting themselves in economic crisis. So basically what you are saying is I have the RIGHT to work....but not only is Uncle Sam going to take a portion of that money for taxes.....but after that tell me what I can and cannot spend the rest of it on?! You support that concept?! If you voted for Bill Shuster you most certainly do.

[Hawk]

The race subject is relevant and not to be hidden from the topic of Libertarianism. Because Liberterians want any private business owners to be able to hire and to allow customers based on race. I say that promotes racism. How could anyone deny that ?

Joe, The Hawks is not my band. I'm just in it. We tried out someone who is not white, we just kept looking until we found someone who played the way we wanted.

I am not calling Liberterians racist, I'm saying they will enable it by their stance on owner rights vs. civil rights.

[lonewolf]

What is that Johnny?

Another illegible rambling? It seems to be a response to my post, but I can't tell for sure.

[Banned]

Libertarians are the only people paying attention to the Constitution today. Both democrats and republicans have totally ignored it for decades now.

Just because you do not like it when someone points out that something is not Constitutional does not mean they are wrong.

If we are to remain a nation of law, you ought to thank Libertarians for following the prime law of the land, the Constitution.

[songsmith]

I was editing, Jeff. Don't worry, your dig on my abilities is unfounded as usual. I still have a firm command of the language, and the singular ability to chill your sh*t.

[Banned]

The race subject is relevant and not to be hidden from the topic of Libertarianism. Because Liberterians want any private business owners to be able to hire and to allow customers based on race. I say that promotes racism. How could anyone deny that ?

Joe, The Hawks is not my band. I'm just in it. We tried out someone who is not white, we just kept looking until we found someone who played the way we wanted.

I am not calling Libertarians racist, I'm saying they will enable it by their stance on owner rights vs. civil rights.

Racism is a thought process. You propose that libertarianism has the ability to control, promote and enable thoughts? Sounds like a bad Sci Fi movie.

If they had that power they would get a lot more votes.

[Hawk]

Bill, you're really worrying me here...I love you to death man, but you're really saying some dangerous things here. Private property rights are at THE FOUNDATION of civil liberties. I think we can all agree that any racist or discriminatory practices are terribly disgusting, but what you don't see here is that for the government to dictate our choices by failing to recognize private property rights is far more debilitating in the long run and is also ultimately more discriminatory. I hate to say this but the ideas you are championing are highly offensive and really sound a lot like the reasoning used by the totalitarian Fascists and Communists in the last century to justify their twisted social engineering.

Another thing that is worrying me is the way you envision human nature. You always seem to conclude that without some overriding nanny state we would all be jumping at the bit to slit each other's throats whenever we weren't too comatose on "illegal drugs" to move. Why are you so afraid? Do you really see humanity that way? Is that how you are inside? I know that's not the way you are. You are a great human being. I think the great majority of humanity is willing to at least live and let live. If that is the way you see human nature, why should we entrust all this power to the government? What makes them so damn altruistic? The worst wars and atrocities that have ever been committed in history have occurred since the rise of the "nation state". What makes you so sure that it is the state that should wield so much power? Shouldn't the law err on the side of WE THE PEOPLE to determine our individual destinies instead of the State?

Just look back no more than the first half of the Twentieth Century and look at all of the segregation. People lost their lives to end it. You are destined to repeat that history ?

I don't believe everyone thinks like me. I believe there are still plenty of racists who would love to have a blacks only water fountain. Tell me why it existed if people are all such wonderful humanitarians. That's fantasy. I do not look out for myself but for all of my neighbors.
If you really think that segregation wouldn't happen again, that is scary ! Or if you are okay with it if it would happen, scares me even more.

[Banned]

Bill, do you not murder because you are a good person and would never think of doing such a thing, or...because there is a law against it?

Do you not do heroine because you do not wish to ruin you health or because it is against the law?

Libertarians think you don't murder, rape and do heroine because they trust you as a person.

You are the obviously the kind of person who does not do those things only because of the laws the government enacted against them.

You have a very dark view of mankind.

[Hawk]

The race subject is relevant and not to be hidden from the topic of Libertarianism. Because Liberterians want any private business owners to be able to hire and to allow customers based on race. I say that promotes racism. How could anyone deny that ?

Joe, The Hawks is not my band. I'm just in it. We tried out someone who is not white, we just kept looking until we found someone who played the way we wanted.

I am not calling Libertarians racist, I'm saying they will enable it by their stance on owner rights vs. civil rights.

Racism is a thought process. You propose that libertarianism has the ability to control, promote and enable thoughts? Sounds like a bad Sci Fi movie.

If they had that power they would get a lot more votes.

Spinning Joe. Okay Joe, what do you call a white person who dislikes another race so much that he will not allow them into his business ? I call that person a racist.


If Liberterians want business owners to be able to not allow any given race, whatever you call that, it's wrong. Do you believe America would be a better country if we went back to that ?