lonewolf wrote:Nobody has the absolute right to access another's privately owned business.
If you think so, just ask somebody who's been barred from a place. If it was an absolute right, you couldn't kick somebody out for bad behavior without due process of law.
Neo-liberals and neo-progressives just can't quite wrap their head around that simple concept.
Neo-conservatives can't wrap their heads around nuance. Bill's not speaking in racial absolutes. He understands that to bar someone from a business based exclusively on their race is wrong and has consequences, but not everyone of different races behaves badly. It seems like the argument you're making is that people who happen to belong to a racial minority can't be thrown out for any reason, which is untrue. Whether or not that person then cries "racism" is irrelevant to his point. The point is that the Civil Rights Act ended whites-only businesses and water fountains, etc., and rightly so. Again, one should not enjoy the fruits of society (profits made from the group) without responsibility to society (allowing everyone in that group into your shop, even those you discriminate against). This is a classic case of arguing FOR yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
I'm not saying any of that--it was more of an FYI than argument.
I'm saying that nobody has the right to access another's property, whether its a public business or not--it is a privilege. This is not my opinion, its the government's stance and they have not granted anybody any such right.
The "Civil Rights Act" does not reinforce or grant any rights to anybody and does not directly address minorities, et.al. The focus of the legislation is on the business owners. Within the context of our "discussion", it is a criminal statute that prohibits public businesses from denying access to their property based on race, creed, etc. The constitutionality for this legislation is based on the federal government's authority to regulate Interstate Commerce--not on any "rights" of minorities. See:
The only "rights" that are affected by the CRA1964 are the personal property rights of the businesses. It is the opinion of the Court that the federal government's authority to regulate commerce trumps personal property rights.
I'm inclined to agree with Jason's stance on rights:
You only have the rights that you are personally willing and able to defend.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Just more support for my argument that government should get out of ALL business. Like it or not, government is an equal opportunity opportunist and can be bought off by anyone with enough cash. The only way to stop it is to eliminate all business intervention and return to minimal, effective regulation.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
undercoverjoe wrote:I will answer it again. I wrote "a person". Could an answer be more clear?
Most people who claim to speak English would understand the difference between "a" and "all". There is a little difference.
You said, "Can they ban a person for bad behavior who happens to be a different race? The person will of course cry race discrimination."
Every time the instance occurs ? Care to speculate a percentage of how many might do that ? Or since you said "a" does that mean it will only ever happen once ?
undercoverjoe wrote:I will answer it again. I wrote "a person". Could an answer be more clear?
Most people who claim to speak English would understand the difference between "a" and "all". There is a little difference.
You said, "Can they ban a person for bad behavior who happens to be a different race? The person will of course cry race discrimination."
Every time the instance occurs ? Care to speculate a percentage of how many might do that ? Or since you said "a" does that mean it will only ever happen once ?
"Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu joined over two dozen Republican lawmakers in calling on Attorney General Eric Holder’s to resign over Operation Fast and Furious, the gunrunning program that saw the ATF deliver some 2,000 guns directly into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, labeling the scandal worse than the Watergate cover-up that brought down the Nixon White House."
"Noting that two of the guns involved in the program were found at the scene where U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was shot to death, Babeu warned that if Holder attempted to stay in power, he could bring down the entire Obama administration."
Incidentally, Fast and Furious was a part of Project Gunrunner, an initiative began in 2005 by ATF agents on the Southwest Border, to attempt to study patterns of drug and weapons trafficking. If it's a bad idea, it was Bush's DOJ that came up with it. If Obama has any fault in this, it's that he carrys on stupid programs to avoid criticism from rightwingers who would still hate him no matter what he did.
(Joe will claim It's a left wing site, yet he will not be able to dispute the facts.)
Up next in our look at past claims made by the 2012 presidential candidates: Rep. Ron Paul. No stranger to presidential campaigns, the Texas Republican has made his share of factual flubs. Paul declared his 2012 candidacy May 13.
■He falsely claimed last December that the estate tax "especially harms small and family-owned businesses." But if the estate tax was returned to 2009 levels, less than 8 percent of estates taxed in 2011 would be family farms and businesses, according to the Tax Policy Center. The tax deal struck by President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans would affect 440 such estates, more than half of which are worth more than $20 million each. Paul also said that the estate tax was "double taxation." That's only the case for cash that had been taxed when it was earned as income. Investments, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, would not have been taxed before, if they had not been sold prior to the owner's death.
■He made the wild claim that "16,500 armed bureaucrats" from the IRS would enforce the mandate that everyone have health insurance. That figure came from a partisan analysis based on false assumptions. Plus, the IRS will mainly distribute tax credits, not enforce penalties. And "armed"? Very few, if any, new hires would actually carry guns. As of 2009, the IRS had only 2,725 (3 percent of all employees) who were "special agents," sworn law enforcement officers assigned to criminal cases and authorized to carry guns. The health care law also bans criminal penalties for those not abiding by the mandate.
■In the 2008 campaign, Paul pushed the bogus conspiracy theory that government bureaucrats and foreign corporations were plotting a "NAFTA Superhighway" and the creation of a North American Union with a single currency. It's all a myth.
■He also claimed in the last presidential race that the U.S. had a "$1 trillion foreign operation" to maintain "our empire." But his $1 trillion figure included all defense spending, plus half of NASA's funding, medical and retirement pay for veterans, the U.S. Border Patrol, airport security, the issuing of passports, cargo inspections, the FBI's counter-terrorism unit, and 92 percent of interest payments on the debt, among other items.
Home • The FactCheck Wire • Ron Paul Ad Invokes Reagan, Imprecisely Ron Paul Ad Invokes Reagan, Imprecisely
Ron Paul wrongly suggests Ronald Reagan reluctantly agreed to a "debt ceiling compromise" in 1987. There was no disagreement over raising the debt ceiling. In fact, Reagan said he had "no objection whatsoever" to raising the debt ceiling. Reagan opposed the main provision of the legislation that threatened to impose deep spending cuts, including to the military, if the president and Congress did not reduce the deficit by a certain amount.
Paul, the populist Texas congressman who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, released a TV ad July 14 that will air in Iowa and New Hampshire. The ad — titled "Conviction, Not Compromise!" — calls on Republican leaders to cut spending, balance the budget and not increase the debt limit.
The ad starts by invoking a Republican icon, former President Ronald Reagan.
Ron Paul Presidential Campaign TV ad, July 14: In the '80s, they did it to Reagan. A debt ceiling compromise. Democrats promising spending cuts, but delivering only tax hikes.
While the announcer talks about a "debt ceiling compromise," the screen displays an image of a sentence from a Sept. 27, 1987, New York Times story. The ad highlights key words of the sentence (shown here in bold): "Mr. Reagan reluctantly agreed Saturday to sign the legislation, which also raises the government debt ceiling to avert a Federal default, but said he would veto any tax increases aimed at meeting the deficit target."
What legislation did Reagan reluctantly agree to sign? It was called the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987, and Reagan objected to it because it would have required automatic spending cuts under certain circumstances that he feared would have compromised national defense. It's true the legislation also included a provision to raise the debt ceiling from $2.3 trillion to $2.8 trillion. But raising the debt ceiling was not in dispute; there was bipartisan agreement that it needed to be done.
A little background: In 1987, Reagan and the Congress had a disagreement over the fiscal year 1988 budget and how to enforce the Balanced Budget Act of 1985, also known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings after the three chief sponsors. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that the process for imposing automatic spending cuts required by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers. In response, Congress passed the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 to fix the constitutional defect. But Reagan objected to the legislation because it would have required an estimated $23 billion in automatic spending cuts in the 1988 budget, if Congress and the president failed to reduce the deficit.
New York Times, Sept. 27, 1987: The new enforcement mechanism, which puts teeth in the 1985 budget-balancing law, requires automatic spending cuts if Congress and the White House do not agree on how to reduce the deficit to specified levels. It will mandate $23 billion in savings in the budget for the 1988 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
Reagan reluctantly signed the legislation on Sept. 29, warning of the potential harm to the military. He also made it clear that he supported raising the debt ceiling — saying that was the only reason he signed the bill.
Reagan, Sept. 29, 1987: The first provision extends the Federal Government's authority to borrow funds. This is an action that we just take to prevent the Government from defaulting on its obligations, and I have no objection whatsoever to doing so. In short, this extension of the debt limit is necessary and unavoidable.
But the second provision is one to which it is my duty as President to voice the strongest possible objection. For this second provision involves a so-called fix of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law — a fix that doesn't fix things in the right way.
It was the 17th and last time the debt ceiling was permanently raised or temporarily expanded under Reagan. The debt ceiling in his eight years rose from $935 billion to $2.8 trillion.
But the 1987 dispute was not over raising the debt ceiling. It was an old-fashioned guns-and-butter dispute, with Reagan seeking to preserve military spending and Democrats seeking to preserve domestic spending in order to comply with the balanced budget act. In the end, Reagan struck a budget agreement to avoid any automatic spending cuts. On Nov. 20, 1987, Reagan and Democratic leaders announced a deal in which the GOP president dropped his demand for no tax increases in exchange for smaller military cuts. The New York Times reported that the deal included $9 billion in tax increases, $9.6 billion in one-time fee increases, and $11.6 billion in spending cuts — including $5 billion in military spending cuts. Reagan signed a final version of the budget on Dec. 23, 1987.
Reagan, Nov. 20, 1987: This agreement is probably not the best deal that could be made, but it is a good solid beginning. It provides the necessary services for our people, maintains our national security, and does so at a level that does not overburden the average American taxpayer — in a word, fairness.
Correction, July 27: This story was updated to reflect that President Ronald Reagan signed 17 bills that permanently or temporarily raised the debt ceiling, not 18 as originally reported. He did sign 18 debt-ceiling bills, but one changed the effective date of the new debt limit without raising or lowering the amount.
The death tax is nothing but legalized robbery for federal highwaymen.
How many times do you have to tax the same money? It needs to stop.
Stocks, bonds and other securities are not currency. How can you tax something that hasn't returned a profit yet? If there is no current cash, it forces a sale of assets just to pay for the taxes.
Only corrupt, morbid, envious little men could conceive such a tax.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:The death tax is nothing but legalized robbery for federal highwaymen.
How many times do you have to tax the same money? It needs to stop.
Stocks, bonds and other securities are not currency. How can you tax something that hasn't returned a profit yet? If there is no current cash, it forces a sale of assets just to pay for the taxes.
Only corrupt, morbid, envious little men could conceive such a tax.
How many times do you need to mark up the same item, to profit the Armani-suits upstairs? What's good for the public goose is good for the private gander.
The "death tax" wouldn't really affect what pretty much all of us here leave behind... it affects large estates, and not even the cash. It taxes large estates over $5 Million (as of 2010). "Death Tax" is a conservative-media pejorative, everywhere else in the world, it's called "inheritance tax." Since any drop in it's rate would only benefit the uber-rich, perhaps it should be called the "Paris Hilton Tax," or "James Murdoch Tax." As for being enforced at gunpoint, that's a bit of an overstatement for effect.
I also have never seen or read of any armed enforcement of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, also pejoratively referred to as "Obamacare" by the conservative media.
I saw a good Twitter post making the rounds on Facebook yesterday:
"I decided to have a conservative-values Halloween. I gave my whole bowl of candy to the richest kid I could find, and let it trickle-down to the other kids."
songsmith wrote:I saw a good Twitter post making the rounds on Facebook yesterday:
"I decided to have a conservative-values Halloween. I gave my whole bowl of candy to the richest kid I could find, and let it trickle-down to the other kids."
Hmmm. I thought conservative-values people didn't celebrate Halloween cuz its a pagan celebration?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:The death tax is nothing but legalized robbery for federal highwaymen.
How many times do you have to tax the same money? It needs to stop.
Stocks, bonds and other securities are not currency. How can you tax something that hasn't returned a profit yet? If there is no current cash, it forces a sale of assets just to pay for the taxes.
Only corrupt, morbid, envious little men could conceive such a tax.
"Death Tax" is a conservative-media pejorative, everywhere else in the world, it's called "inheritance tax." Since any drop in it's rate would only benefit the uber-rich, perhaps it should be called the "Paris Hilton Tax," or "James Murdoch Tax." As for being enforced at gunpoint, that's a bit of an overstatement for effect.
I also have never seen or read of any armed enforcement of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, also pejoratively referred to as "Obamacare" by the conservative media.
The title "Affordable Care Act of 2010" is just as laughable as "Obamacare" only with a lot more words and syllables. Call it what you like, it isn't in effect yet, so there cannot be enforcement.
Ultimately, all government laws and mandates are enforced at gunpoint. Most people just give up way before it comes to that.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:The death tax is nothing but legalized robbery for federal highwaymen.
How many times do you have to tax the same money? It needs to stop.
Stocks, bonds and other securities are not currency. How can you tax something that hasn't returned a profit yet? If there is no current cash, it forces a sale of assets just to pay for the taxes.
Only corrupt, morbid, envious little men could conceive such a tax.
How many times do you need to mark up the same item, to profit the Armani-suits upstairs? What's good for the public goose is good for the private gander.
The "death tax" wouldn't really affect what pretty much all of us here leave behind... it affects large estates, and not even the cash. It taxes large estates over $5 Million (as of 2010). "Death Tax" is a conservative-media pejorative, everywhere else in the world, it's called "inheritance tax." Since any drop in it's rate would only benefit the uber-rich, perhaps it should be called the "Paris Hilton Tax," or "James Murdoch Tax."
Socialist wealth re-distribution to a proletariat of squanderers is no excuse for bad tax policy. Let me add "greedy" to the phrase, "Corrupt, morbid, envious little men."
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:
Socialist wealth re-distribution to a proletariat of squanderers is no excuse for bad tax policy. Let me add "greedy" to the phrase, "Corrupt, morbid, envious little men."
