Obama Signs Westminster Abbey Guest Book…

[Banned]

Since I live in the south near Durham, NC, where the African American population is nearly equal to the white population, I could run into town and ask a few of the folks what they think about a property owners rights and the Civil Rights Act for y'all. Should I only ask the ones with jobs though since the other ones don't count?

Here's some reading in the mean time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Durham has some pretty solid history with this act, so I might get some valuable input.

Couldn't care a bit what you do.

[lonewolf]

You can include the time you have spent tuning the Indian doctors' pianos.

Nice ad hominem. You've launched a few at me & the music I make, too. Is tuning pianos for a living a lesser station in life than your own? I need to understand this.
PS-- I typed this slowly, so you could read it easier.

OK, I'll indulge you Johnny. 1st of all, your post wreaks of the libby habit of reading between the lines and finding something that's not there. You guys need to stop that....you are not very good at it and it will get you in trouble someday.

I think its extremely cool that Bill is a piano tuner and I have nothing but the utmost respect for him and his profession. I was thinking about where in central PA he might have the opportunity to get "diversity" experience. Since its less likely from a social situation, I thought about his work. I figured that he does a lot of work for upper income people and since there are a lot of PhD immigrants, including Asian Indian doctors buying up the million dollar houses, I put 1 and 1 together.

The only thing I recall launching at you (aside from my critique of your long-winded posts) is reference to your economic status which you have already made quite well known...that your better half is the breadwinner of the family and you'd probably be on skid row (not the band) without her. You insult me all the time in your rambling bantor, so I figure I should take a shot at you once in awhile. You don't like it? You can always back off.

I don't recall launching anything negative at your music. I thought that was a brilliant move going to Mama Corn and when people ask about bluegrass or just something different, I tell them to go see your band.

I probably got a little short on here. There will be no apologies because recently, I have had several instances of people concocting bullshit about me out of thin air--then I saw more of it here. I no longer have any patience for it.

[songsmith]

Oh, and it's nice to see you figured out how to get to websites that don't have the word "heritage" in the URL. By the way, I'm coming to your property, and I'm bringing a black man. Are you going to shoot us, lynch us, or spray us with a firehose?

What website are you referring to Mr. Smarm?

The black man is extraneous, just bring your runty self to find out.

Well, you had to go to a dictionary site to get that definition, I'm supposing, unless the Cato Institute has their own dictionary, which wouldn't surprise me... the Libertarians don't want us looking at all those socialist, totalitarian dictionaries they didn't pre-approve. We couldn't function as a society if people didn't come to you for approval. Incidentally, do I get to define the tone of what I wrote, or do you always call the tune?

Definition of SNARKY per Merriam-Webster:
1: crotchety, snappish
2: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics>

--->Mr Snark

PS-- I love it when you call me "runt." Especially when we're canoodling.

[nakedtwister]

I honestly can't believe that in 2011 I have to argue for keeping race based segregation and race based discrimination out of places open to the general public.

I'm blown away...Sad commentary for Rockpage ? I don't know ?

Do the majority of you really want to go back to the 1960s ?

No but I think a lot of us are tired of being punished for shit our families had nothing to do with. I' m all for equality, but it flies both ways.

[Larry]

Since I live in the south near Durham, NC, where the African American population is nearly equal to the white population, I could run into town and ask a few of the folks what they think about a property owners rights and the Civil Rights Act for y'all. Should I only ask the ones with jobs though since the other ones don't count?

Here's some reading in the mean time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Durham has some pretty solid history with this act, so I might get some valuable input.

Couldn't care a bit what you do.

I was only trying to help you out with your debate.

[nakedtwister]

Joe, can I keep your Michael Burk CD since you are a racist?

No one said Joe is a racist. That's a poor/bad conclusion to draw, even in jest.

Then how did a political subject turn to race?

[Banned]

Joe, can I keep your Michael Burk CD since you are a racist?

No one said Joe is a racist. That's a poor/bad conclusion to draw, even in jest.

Then how did a political subject turn to race?

A certain drummer is responsible there.

[Larry]

I honestly can't believe that in 2011 I have to argue for keeping race based segregation and race based discrimination out of places open to the general public.

I'm blown away...Sad commentary for Rockpage ? I don't know ?

Do the majority of you really want to go back to the 1960s ?

No but I think a lot of us are tired of being punished for shit our families had nothing to do with. I' m all for equality, but it flies both ways.

How are you being punished? Your reply to the quoted post suggests that it is because you are forced to eat in public restaurants along side other races, but I'm guessing that isn't what you meant.

[Banned]

Oh, and it's nice to see you figured out how to get to websites that don't have the word "heritage" in the URL. By the way, I'm coming to your property, and I'm bringing a black man. Are you going to shoot us, lynch us, or spray us with a firehose?

What website are you referring to Mr. Smarm?

The black man is extraneous, just bring your runty self to find out.

Well, you had to go to a dictionary site to get that definition, I'm supposing, unless the Cato Institute has their own dictionary, which wouldn't surprise me... the Libertarians don't want us looking at all those socialist, totalitarian dictionaries they didn't pre-approve. We couldn't function as a society if people didn't come to you for approval. Incidentally, do I get to define the tone of what I wrote, or do you always call the tune?

Definition of SNARKY per Merriam-Webster:
1: crotchety, snappish
2: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics>

--->Mr Snark

PS-- I love it when you call me "runt." Especially when we're canoodling.

I did not have to go to a dictionary. I chose to.

I have no idea of what the Cato Institute has, go and find out yourself, since you are already making assumptions about them.

I have never seen a list of approved or non approved libertarian dictionaries. Again something you totally made up, and pass on as fact.

I never want YOU to come to me for approval. The less I have to do with the likes of you, the better.

I can define your tone. You can define your tone.

I will still go with smarmy, snarky can work, but smarmy is a better fit.

The canoodling remark was way over the top.

[Banned]

Since I live in the south near Durham, NC, where the African American population is nearly equal to the white population, I could run into town and ask a few of the folks what they think about a property owners rights and the Civil Rights Act for y'all. Should I only ask the ones with jobs though since the other ones don't count?

Here's some reading in the mean time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Durham has some pretty solid history with this act, so I might get some valuable input.

Couldn't care a bit what you do.

I was only trying to help you out with your debate.

Sorry. Some posts on here are getting me edgy.

[Gallowglass]

Which is more racist, to constantly categorize and assign collective thought values to a people based upon their typology or to assess each person as an individual? The problem Bill, is that your subconscious thought process seems racist to begin with. You seem to "see" people automatically in "groups" rather than "see" them as individuals. This leads to the false assumption that there is some kind of singular teleological answer to what is really a quite diverse subject (where there really may not even be a problem). The automatic arbiter of said teleology is, of course, the government. The subject of said thought processes then rationalizes that there is a need to secure some type of peace and we turn to the arbiter for a solution. The rationalization is that we can secure collective peace (safety) by limiting some individual freedoms. This is a pretty dicey situation and the extreme end result often looks a lot like iron curtains and death camps. I'm not into that shit.

[Larry]

Couldn't care a bit what you do.

I was only trying to help you out with your debate.

Sorry. Some posts on here are getting me edgy.

Thanks. These are pretty touchy subjects, but the debate has made me think about them in more detail. I appreciate both sides, since neither seems to based on ill will. Diversity in thought and the ability to voice those thoughts make this country a great place to be.

[Larry]

Which is more racist, to constantly categorize and assign collective thought values to a people based upon their typology or to assess each person as an individual? The problem Bill, is that your subconscious thought process seems racist to begin with. You seem to "see" people automatically in "groups" rather than "see" them as individuals. This leads to the false assumption that there is some kind of singular teleological answer to what is really a quite diverse subject (where there really may not even be a problem). The automatic arbiter of said teleology is, of course, the government. The subject of said thought processes then rationalizes that there is a need to secure some type of peace and we turn to the arbiter for a solution. The rationalization is that we can secure collective peace (safety) by limiting some individual freedoms. This is a pretty dicey situation and the extreme end result often looks a lot like iron curtains and death camps. I'm not into that shit.

Denial that racism exists will not make it go away. Abolishing the Civil Rights Act, which benefits "groups", and trusting that everybody will do the right thing would be disastrous. I do wish it worked that way though.

[nakedtwister]

I honestly can't believe that in 2011 I have to argue for keeping race based segregation and race based discrimination out of places open to the general public.

I'm blown away...Sad commentary for Rockpage ? I don't know ?

Do the majority of you really want to go back to the 1960s ?

No but I think a lot of us are tired of being punished for shit our families had nothing to do with. I' m all for equality, but it flies both ways.

How are you being punished? Your reply to the quoted post suggests that it is because you are forced to eat in public restaurants along side other races, but I'm guessing that isn't what you meant.

No that is not what I meant. As far as I'm concerned we are part of the Human race. I don't care what color, religion, creed, gender, etc. you are. I have shared a lifetime with many different people from all of the above in a few different countries. Some people I loved and some I despised. What I hate though, when I dislike someone form a group from the above mentioned, is when people assume I don't like them for that reason. Racism works both ways is what I was trying to say. Now I am done with this.

[Gallowglass]

...Denial that racism exists will not make it go away. Abolishing the Civil Rights Act, which benefits "groups", and trusting that everybody will do the right thing would be disastrous. I do wish it worked that way though.

I don't understand...I never said that racism didn't exist. I never denied it a bit. I also never said that I trusted that everybody would do the "right thing". I just think that there is a greater evil in doing a worse thing, i.e., denying all people the ability to do what they want within the confines of their personal property. Regardless of whatever anyone wants to argue, I hold that access to a person's property is a privilege, not a right. I don't think it would be so disastrous anyway. People would do what they tend to do now anyway, which is associate with like minded folk as they see fit. Why would a minority even want to patronize an establishment that doesn't want them there anyway? Can't they find a better place to spend their money? Why reward some racist asshole?

[f.sciarrillo]

Since I live in the south near Durham, NC, where the African American population is nearly equal to the white population, I could run into town and ask a few of the folks what they think about a property owners rights and the Civil Rights Act for y'all. Should I only ask the ones with jobs though since the other ones don't count?

Here's some reading in the mean time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Durham has some pretty solid history with this act, so I might get some valuable input.

Good idea. I have to say that when you said about the jobs I lost it. That was hilarious. Sorry to offend if you weren't trying to be funny.

[f.sciarrillo]

Johnny, Your posts give me a head ache.

Thinking does that, if you're not used to it.

What is there to think about? You go through at least three different topics in one post. Two of which have nothing to do with what the subject at hand.

[songsmith]

Which is more racist, to constantly categorize and assign collective thought values to a people based upon their typology or to assess each person as an individual? The problem Bill, is that your subconscious thought process seems racist to begin with. You seem to "see" people automatically in "groups" rather than "see" them as individuals. This leads to the false assumption that there is some kind of singular teleological answer to what is really a quite diverse subject (where there really may not even be a problem). The automatic arbiter of said teleology is, of course, the government. The subject of said thought processes then rationalizes that there is a need to secure some type of peace and we turn to the arbiter for a solution. The rationalization is that we can secure collective peace (safety) by limiting some individual freedoms. This is a pretty dicey situation and the extreme end result often looks a lot like iron curtains and death camps. I'm not into that shit.

Denial that racism exists will not make it go away. Abolishing the Civil Rights Act, which benefits "groups", and trusting that everybody will do the right thing would be disastrous. I do wish it worked that way though.

My thoughts exactly. The idea that our freedoms include state-sanctioned discrimination, or that one group inherently outranks another reeks of... death camps and iron curtains. The oft-stated point in this thread that "I am not racist, I just won't allow black people on my property" contradicts itself, and that is the crux of the argument. You have the right to own a gun (property rights). You do not have the right to shoot it at anyone, with a very few exceptions (and you're going to have to prove those exceptions to a jury of your peers). Your freedoms are not being limited by tyranny, they are being limited by other's rights to safety. Libertarians exist in a vacuum, or so they think. Society is nothing more than an enemy to them, who fails to see their obvious "power" and "ability." They don't want Society to have any say in their lives, they don't want to pay taxes to Society for the benefits of being a member, and they reserve the right to eliminate any member of Society, if they choose. It's a psychological mindset, not a political affiliation. Narcissism, egoism, and in many cases, sociopathy. I'm okay with the average doofus with a Don't Tread On Me flag, as long as he doesn't replace justice and equality with warped self-righteousness and self-appointed authority. (Joe, that means "you're not the boss of me." Get someone to help you with the big words.) In short, you are free to hate, you just can't do anything about it, too bad, so sad, don't like it, go somewhere else and start your own society. This one's a democracy, and "all men are created equal."

[songsmith]

Johnny, Your posts give me a head ache.

Thinking does that, if you're not used to it.

What is there to think about? You go through at least three different topics in one post. Two of which have nothing to do with what the subject at hand.

Then you're not thinking hard enough. Keep practicing, though. I see hope for you, but Joe's a lost cause, I think. The problem people are having with my writing is that I bring up gaping holes in their philosophy, and I don't accept their authority, because they have none that applies to me. I also write from a different perspective than Fox News, and with a different tactic. They're not used to doing without easily-digested soundbites and talking points. Reality is complex, and they want catch-phrases.
I relish such criticism. The fact that they hardly ever deconstruct my points means they can't fully deal with anything more than calling me some names. This makes me happy.

[sstuckey]

Johnny, Your posts give me a head ache.

Thinking does that, if you're not used to it.

What is there to think about? You go through at least three different topics in one post. Two of which have nothing to do with what the subject at hand.

I couldn't agree more!! I made a post about legalizing internet gambling and somehow this dude made it into my attempt at saving the planet. Which no where in anything I wrote did I say anything REMOTELY close to that. Anyone who knows me knows, I love a good debate.... but for the love of god can you make it a debate?!

[songsmith]

You guys are hilarious. I can and will take on all of you, and you can call me all the names you want. I'll even use little words, so you can understand. Do you think I'm going to get frustrated and walk away? Fat Chance. This is easy-peasy, kids. Want to impress? Go an entire paragraph without using a talking-point, catch-phrase, or something else you heard on talkshows. Jason did it. Larry did it. So try that.
Can anyone understand that? Is it too much? How can I dumb it down any further?

[sstuckey]

Thinking does that, if you're not used to it.

What is there to think about? You go through at least three different topics in one post. Two of which have nothing to do with what the subject at hand.

I couldn't agree more!! I made a post about legalizing internet gambling and somehow this dude made it into my attempt at saving the planet. Which no where in anything I wrote did I say anything REMOTELY close to that. Anyone who knows me knows, I love a good debate.... but for the love of god can you make it a debate?!

And he did it again with this reply....

Puh-leeze. Okay, Skippy, you win. Poker will save the world. At least until your next hobby comes along

Nothing I wrote said anything in the same vicinity of "poker will save the planet" yet this is his ammunition for an argument. Which is EXACTLY the point Frank just made. Dude stick to the topic at hand. You have like A.D.D. or something.

[sstuckey]

You guys are hilarious. I can and will take on all of you, and you can call me all the names you want. I'll even use little words, so you can understand. Do you think I'm going to get frustrated and walk away? Fat Chance. This is easy-peasy, kids. Want to impress? Go an entire paragraph without using a talking-point, catch-phrase, or something else you heard on talkshows. Jason did it. Larry did it. So try that.
Can anyone understand that? Is it too much? How can I dumb it down any further?

Thats hysterical? I absolutely OWNED you on our last debate and have yet to see a response other than "poker will save the world" I took your OWN words.... your OWN "logic".... and eventually your OWN research and numbers, and used them against you. You got frustrated. You walked away. So take your best shot at dissecting my logic the way I obliterated yours. And do your best to stick to the actual topic at hand. I'll be right here anxiously awaiting your best efforts.

[f.sciarrillo]

Thinking does that, if you're not used to it.

What is there to think about? You go through at least three different topics in one post. Two of which have nothing to do with what the subject at hand.

Then you're not thinking hard enough. Keep practicing, though. I see hope for you, but Joe's a lost cause, I think. The problem people are having with my writing is that I bring up gaping holes in their philosophy, and I don't accept their authority, because they have none that applies to me. I also write from a different perspective than Fox News, and with a different tactic. They're not used to doing without easily-digested soundbites and talking points. Reality is complex, and they want catch-phrases.
I relish such criticism. The fact that they hardly ever deconstruct my points means they can't fully deal with anything more than calling me some names. This makes me happy.

I am glad to hear that you relish criticism. Fox News does dumb it down a little bit. But you are talking like Keith Olbermann and his thesaurus. You can't tell me he didn't use one. That guy is too stupid to know all those words.

Rambling sentences makes it difficult to understand what you are saying. I'm not saying anything about your vocabulary, as it is pretty good. You just ramble too much and it is hard to keep track. Your posts are like a boring novel. You read the first two or three sentences and you just give up on the whole damn thing

You ever hear of short and sweet? Just like when you said about a simple yes or no answer is suffice. You couldn't give one if you tries.

You know I like you, Johnny. I am just heckling you a little

[Banned]

Thinking does that, if you're not used to it.

What is there to think about? You go through at least three different topics in one post. Two of which have nothing to do with what the subject at hand.

Then you're not thinking hard enough. Keep practicing, though. I see hope for you, but Joe's a lost cause, I think. The problem people are having with my writing is that I bring up gaping holes in their philosophy, and I don't accept their authority, because they have none that applies to me. I also write from a different perspective than Fox News, and with a different tactic. They're not used to doing without easily-digested soundbites and talking points. Reality is complex, and they want catch-phrases.
I relish such criticism. The fact that they hardly ever deconstruct my points means they can't fully deal with anything more than calling me some names. This makes me happy.

Another badge of honor. Mr. Smarmy thinks I am a lost cause. I now know I am doing something right.

What is so funny is that libertarian philosophies have been discussed here, and mr. smarm brings up Fox News. They are last place libertarian ideals would be found. Fox did not let Ron Paul into their debates 3 years ago. They did everything they could to sabotage Ron Paul's campaign. Fox News is not a supporter of libertarian ideas, yet mr smarm uses this in his posts all the time. Usually he throws in Rush, Hannity...... They have nothing to do with libertarianism, but that does not stop mr smarm. Then he wonders why so many here claim his posts are directionless and pointless.