Hawk wrote:The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations"). Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section , its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.
I thank God that there are civil rights laws in place today. If you are against that and see THAT as your freedom being eroded rather than seeing it as those minorities freedoms being established, then so be it. I don't like your opinion but it is nothing personal.
Ahh, the good ole civil rights act. The one that had more democrats voting against then Republicans. Yep, I am glad that it passed.
If you are glad it passed, why do you seem to be arguing for Libertarianism, as they would like to remove the civil rights act and go back to the way things used to be, all in the name of who owns the business or school...?
Not arguing for them, just saying my side. I don't see where I was arguing for them? Maybe I need to word it different? My main point in the whole fiasco was that I don't see how telling a black man to get off my private property makes me a racist.
I said before that I agree with some things the government does, the civil rights act is one of them. But there is a difference between being a racist and using your rights.
Hawk wrote:
If you have been following, I am against affirmative action and for hiring relative to talent level. I am against a whites only establishment.
I agree with you there, Bill. Quick, call Ripley
Don't you see ? Joe is FOR a restaurant being allowed to be a whites only establishment based on Libertarian principles. I am not calling Joe a racist.
Ah, o.k. I misunderstood then? I don't agree with white only establishments. But a private club has the right to be such.
undercoverjoe wrote:They are not personal Bill. I am just pointing out how you want laws for others to obey, but for you its OK.
You keep equating libertarianism with racism. That is personal to me and other libertarians. You have that whole idea totally wrong. But calling Ron Paul and libertarians racist, you are calling me and others racist. Why are you getting so personal?
Damn Joe, read. Liberteriasm would enable discriminatory racism to exist, I did not call any Liberterian a racist !
Damn Joe, read. Liberteriasm would enable discriminatory racism to exist, I did not call any Liberterian a racist !
Damn Joe, read. Liberteriasm would enable discriminatory racism to exist, I did not call any Liberterian a racist !
Now would like to produce any quotes where I called Liberterians racists ?
f.sciarrillo wrote:
I agree with you there, Bill. Quick, call Ripley
Don't you see ? Joe is FOR a restaurant being allowed to be a whites only establishment based on Libertarian principles. I am not calling Joe a racist.
Ah, o.k. I misunderstood then? I don't agree with white only establishments. But a private club has the right to be such.
f.sciarrillo wrote:
I agree with you there, Bill. Quick, call Ripley
Don't you see ? Joe is FOR a restaurant being allowed to be a whites only establishment based on Libertarian principles. I am not calling Joe a racist.
Ah, o.k. I misunderstood then? I don't agree with white only establishments. But a private club has the right to be such.
What is the difference? If both are privately owned, why can one admit whom they wish and the other cannot? One can do what they want with their property and one cannot????
I am also for the right of a black owner of a restaurant to not allow whites.
I am for the right of the owner of private property to do whatever they want with their property. Is there something wrong with this Bill?
Hawk wrote:
Don't you see ? Joe is FOR a restaurant being allowed to be a whites only establishment based on Libertarian principles. I am not calling Joe a racist.
Ah, o.k. I misunderstood then? I don't agree with white only establishments. But a private club has the right to be such.
What is the difference? If both are privately owned, why can one admit whom they wish and the other cannot? One can do what they want with their property and one cannot????
I am also for the right of a black owner of a restaurant to not allow whites.
I am for the right of the owner of private property to do whatever they want with their property. Is there something wrong with this Bill?
There is no difference. As long as you are with in your rights to do an act, I say go for it. I also don't agree with black only establishments. In fact, I don't agree with discrimination at all. But a private establishment has the right to be what they want.
undercoverjoe wrote:They are not personal Bill. I am just pointing out how you want laws for others to obey, but for you its OK.
You keep equating libertarianism with racism. That is personal to me and other libertarians. You have that whole idea totally wrong. But calling Ron Paul and libertarians racist, you are calling me and others racist. Why are you getting so personal?
Damn Joe, read. Liberteriasm would enable discriminatory racism to exist, I did not call any Liberterian a racist !
Damn Joe, read. Liberteriasm would enable discriminatory racism to exist, I did not call any Liberterian a racist !
Damn Joe, read. Liberteriasm would enable discriminatory racism to exist, I did not call any Liberterian a racist !
Now would like to produce any quotes where I called Liberterians racists ?
When you say one enables racism, you are a c.h. away from calling them a racist. Maybe you did not know this, now you do.
Hawk wrote:
Don't you see ? Joe is FOR a restaurant being allowed to be a whites only establishment based on Libertarian principles. I am not calling Joe a racist.
Ah, o.k. I misunderstood then? I don't agree with white only establishments. But a private club has the right to be such.
What is the difference? If both are privately owned, why can one admit whom they wish and the other cannot? One can do what they want with their property and one cannot????
I am also for the right of a black owner of a restaurant to not allow whites.
I am for the right of the owner of private property to do whatever they want with their property. Is there something wrong with this Bill?
Some places ARE "facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").
The other place is NOT open to the general public. Huge difference !
I never doubted you would be for a (name the race) only facility...
undercoverjoe wrote:They are not personal Bill. I am just pointing out how you want laws for others to obey, but for you its OK.
You keep equating libertarianism with racism. That is personal to me and other libertarians. You have that whole idea totally wrong. But calling Ron Paul and libertarians racist, you are calling me and others racist. Why are you getting so personal?
Damn Joe, read. Liberteriasm would enable discriminatory racism to exist, I did not call any Liberterian a racist !
Damn Joe, read. Liberteriasm would enable discriminatory racism to exist, I did not call any Liberterian a racist !
Damn Joe, read. Liberteriasm would enable discriminatory racism to exist, I did not call any Liberterian a racist !
Now would like to produce any quotes where I called Liberterians racists ?
When you say one enables racism, you are a c.h. away from calling them a racist. Maybe you did not know this, now you do.
I am sorry that you might make that conclusion but it is a WRONG conclusion !
Perhaps if I said the Libertarian principles enable discriminatory racism it would be easier on you ? I mean, come on Joe, they do.
I am for whatever a private owner wants to do with his property.
I discriminate all the time. I only buy certain kinds of tissue and TP paper. I only listen to certain kinds of music. I only go to see the best of blues bands.
The Constitution guarantees me the right to discriminate.
If some other citizens do not discriminate according to your personal morals, that is not my problem.
onegunguitar wrote:Racism,discrimination,blah blah blah.....I still think our president and his admin. suck.
According to many in the media like Jesse Jackson and some democrat Congressmen......that sentiment will get you labeled a racist today. They throw that accusation around like beads at Mardi Gras.
onegunguitar wrote:Racism,discrimination,blah blah blah.....I still think our president and his admin. suck.
According to many in the media like Jesse Jackson and some democrat Congressmen......that sentiment will get you labeled a racist today. They throw that accusation around like beads at Mardi Gras.
I agree, it does get thrown around too liberally...
undercoverjoe wrote:I think you principles lead to socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism.
IMHO they are much more of an evil to mankind than racism.
The difference between us is that you believe ownership freedom, relative to discriminatory racism, trumps the freedom of the patron and the worker.
Two opposing principles we will never agree on.
How can there be any freedom with socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism? There is none!!! Your ideas and principles negate freedom and liberty. That is why Libertarianism is totally opposed to those (and your) ideals.
You seem to want oppression of the masses for the privilege of the few.
undercoverjoe wrote:I think you principles lead to socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism.
IMHO they are much more of an evil to mankind than racism.
The difference between us is that you believe ownership freedom, relative to discriminatory racism, trumps the freedom of the patron and the worker.
Two opposing principles we will never agree on.
How can there be any freedom with socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism? There is none!!! Your ideas and principles negate freedom and liberty. That is why Libertarianism is totally opposed to those (and your) ideals.
You seem to want oppression of the masses for the privilege of the few.
You are assuming too much and therefore drawing poor conclusions. I believe in democracy, freedom of speech, no gun control, capitalism, ownership of property, freedom to eat in any resturant you want, etc. etc. etc. all of which I believe are contradictory to pure socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism.
I do believe in social projects in a capitalist society.
undercoverjoe wrote:I think you principles lead to socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism.
IMHO they are much more of an evil to mankind than racism.
The difference between us is that you believe ownership freedom, relative to discriminatory racism, trumps the freedom of the patron and the worker.
Two opposing principles we will never agree on.
The patrons and the workers are free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe on somebody else's rights. I don't know where you get this silly notion that everybody has a right to work at or enter any private business property they please. No such right exists for anyone.
Sadly, infringing on somebody's rights is exactly what happens when the government comes in and puts their boot on the throat of every private business and tells them whom they will hire and whom they will serve.
Last edited by lonewolf on Monday May 30, 2011, edited 1 time in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Hawk wrote:You are assuming too much and therefore drawing poor conclusions. I believe in democracy, freedom of speech, no gun control, capitalism, ownership of property, freedom to eat in any resturant you want, etc. etc. etc. all of which I believe are contradictory to pure socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism.
I do believe in social projects in a capitalist society.
You do not have the right to eat in any privately owned restaurant that you want. Period. Eating in somebody else's privately owned restaurant is purely a privilege, not a right.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
undercoverjoe wrote:I think you principles lead to socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism.
IMHO they are much more of an evil to mankind than racism.
The difference between us is that you believe ownership freedom, relative to discriminatory racism, trumps the freedom of the patron and the worker.
Two opposing principles we will never agree on.
The patrons and the workers are free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe on somebody else's rights. I don't know where you get this silly notion that everybody has a right to work at or enter any private business property they please. No such right exists for anyone.
Sadly, infringing on somebody's rights is exactly what happens when the government comes in and puts their boot on the throat of every private business and tells them whom they will hire and whom they will serve.
Come on Jeff, you know I'm talking about business open to the general public, and having non racial discriminatory hiring practices. Do you really NOT get that or are you trying to twist what the civil rights act is ?
There is a difference between private property and an owner of private property opening his property (as in a resturant) to the general public.
Hawk wrote:You are assuming too much and therefore drawing poor conclusions. I believe in democracy, freedom of speech, no gun control, capitalism, ownership of property, freedom to eat in any resturant you want, etc. etc. etc. all of which I believe are contradictory to pure socialism, communism, totalitarianism and fascism.
I do believe in social projects in a capitalist society.
You do not have the right to eat in any privately owned restaurant that you want. Period. Eating in somebody else's privately owned restaurant is purely a privilege, not a right.
If it is opened to the general public, then the priviledge should be opened to any race.
Hawk wrote:
The difference between us is that you believe ownership freedom, relative to discriminatory racism, trumps the freedom of the patron and the worker.
Two opposing principles we will never agree on.
The patrons and the workers are free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe on somebody else's rights. I don't know where you get this silly notion that everybody has a right to work at or enter any private business property they please. No such right exists for anyone.
Sadly, infringing on somebody's rights is exactly what happens when the government comes in and puts their boot on the throat of every private business and tells them whom they will hire and whom they will serve.
Come on Jeff, you know I'm talking about business open to the general public, and having non racial discriminatory hiring practices. Do you really NOT get that or are you trying to twist what the civil rights act is ?
There is a difference between private property and an owner of private property opening his property (as in a resturant) to the general public.
No. No difference. I do understand what you are saying, and I actually used to believe that bullshit when I was younger, uninformed and did not truly understand what real freedom is. We were all brainwashed in the 60s with these false notions. The truth will set you free.
Private property is private property and the US government hasn't respected that in decades. I don't care if its open to the greys from Alpha Centauri, nobody and I mean NOBODY has an absolute right to work on or enter private property. Courthouses, city halls, and other public places? Yes, absolutely. Private property? I don't care if the doors are swinging open 24/7...nobody has a right to it.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
, its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.
