Obama Signs Westminster Abbey Guest Book…

[sstuckey]

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.

+1 couldn't have said it better myself

[Hawk]

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.

Joe, when will you get it. My opinions are NOT based on what I would or wouldn't do, but by what I have seen others already do.

[Hawk]

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.

+1 couldn't have said it better myself

Do you really believe everyone is as good as you ? If you do not discriminate, no one else would either ? Or are you cool if others are allowed to discriminate based on race ?

[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.

Joe, when will you get it. My opinions are NOT based on what I would or wouldn't do, but by what I have seen others already do.

That answer scares me even more.

So you are the only good person, and the laws are for everyone else? You ought to be in Congress, make laws for everyone else while they are exempt from their own laws.

[Hawk]

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.

Joe, when will you get it. My opinions are NOT based on what I would or wouldn't do, but by what I have seen others already do.

That answer scares me even more.

So you are the only good person, and the laws are for everyone else? You ought to be in Congress, make laws for everyone else while they are exempt from their own laws.

Why are you skirting my last few questions ?

I've seen segregation and I've seen what it could do. The laws based on race segregation and discrimination are for the people who would prefer discrimination. The laws are for the ones who are racists.

[lonewolf]

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.

In a pig's eye.

[Gallowglass]

...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 ?

Uh, yeah Bill, that was kinda part of my point. The first half of the twentieth century falls well within the period I was referring to. In fact...it was the period I was referring to. As far as repeating history, you should read "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto" and compare the logic regarding the people's general welfare contained therein and compare that to the arguments you are making. The history that followed the acceptance of those principles is what I'd really like to avoid.

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.

OK then, if people are such rabid racist ant-humanitarian bastards, why should we entrust any amount of power to a central authority like the government? Doesn't power just corrupt these people even further? Wouldn't it be better to disperse this power more to the people? At least then the damage to society would be minimized?

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.

I don't know if segregation would happen again on a large scale or not. Usually, it takes something like a state or federal authority to enact something like that on a large scale (see my second point). If it happened again an a personal property rights level, I wouldn't be happy with it, but I think it would be the lesser of two evils.

[Banned]

No the laws affect everyone's rights to personal freedom. The laws take away property rights, a terrible thing to do in a so called "free" country.

Answer Lonewolf's question, do you want a fascist state to tramp all over property and civil rights so some have the privilege to enter another's personal property against their will?

What other laws you want to control thoughts? What if we look at someone else's wife. Should there be a law against that thought? Once you get started on this, there is no end. The Nazi Gestapo would be a good template for this.

[songsmith]

[OK then, if people are such rabid racist ant-humanitarian bastards, why should we entrust any amount of power to a central authority like the government?

Because, under the highly-touted Constitution, all power of government comes from the governed. WE are the govt. WE are not represented by business interests, in fact, they exist only for their own profit, not the betterment of society. Govt is charged with providing for the "general welfare" of it's citizens. If that means some business can't plunder the population at will, or some citizen forgoes the right to own a nuke, then too bad. It is not a nanny state to attempt a just society, unless you believe that big fish should eat little fish with impunity, and hope for an end result where there's one final big fish who rules the pond.
The idea that suddenly, since the 2008 election, America is now fighting to maintain freedom... well, nobody says that outside of the fringe media. That media is a favorite target of mine to be sure, because modern conservative dogma would falter instantly without it.

[Banned]

[OK then, if people are such rabid racist ant-humanitarian bastards, why should we entrust any amount of power to a central authority like the government?

conservative dogma would falter instantly without it.

If all people are flawed racist, anti-humanitarian bastards, then our elected officials are too. How could the laws they enact not be racist and anti-humanitarian? How could their laws overcome racism and anti-humanitarianism? You totally missed this point of his post, as usual.

Why do you keep bring conservative dogma into this debate clearly about libertarianism? I answered you idiotic questions and then you did not like my answers and changed what I said to suit you viewpoint. You cannot make any argument without attacking conservatism, when conservatism is not even in this discussion. Your one track hatred of conservatism is getting old.

[Gallowglass]

Ron Paul addressing an old charge of racism. Listen to the man's answers and then think about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

[f.sciarrillo]

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 ?

So, if I have private property and two people come up to want to get on, one being a black and one being white. If I don't allow either of them to go on, what does that make me?

[Banned]

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 ?

So, if I have private property and two people come up to want to get on, one being a black and one being white. If I don't allow either of them to go on, what does that make me?

An American citizen exercising your right of ownership of private property. Some on here, , want the government to take that right away from you.

[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 ?

So, if I have private property and two people come up to want to get on, one being a black and one being white. If I don't allow either of them to go on, what does that make me?

As usual Frank, you don't get it. Your Party is private. A business owner owns a public restaurant. How in hell can you confuse the difference between the two ? If you own a public restaurant and it's allowed to be a whites only restaurant, that is Libertarianism and that is the discussion.

[Banned]

If a person owns a business it is privately owned. If the government owns the business, then it is a public business and publicly owned.

Now you can have a privately owned business and have it open to the public or have it closed like a private club.

[f.sciarrillo]

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

So, if I have private property and two people come up to want to get on, one being a black and one being white. If I don't allow either of them to go on, what does that make me?

As usual Frank, you don't get it. Your Party is private. A business owner owns a public restaurant. How in hell can you confuse the difference between the two ? If you own a public restaurant and it's allowed to be a whites only restaurant, that is Libertarianism and that is the discussion.

I know the difference, and not all restaurants are public. There was mention of private property in a few of the earlier posts, and that is what I was making a point about.

You didn't answer like I thought you would. But that is o.k. I can expect that from you.

[Hawk]

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.

[Banned]

In your privately owned business, you can hire or not hire anyone you choose, based on your employment needs.

Bill wants the state to tell you who you can or can not hire. Except for Bill, who has no black musicians in his band, even though he plays "black" music, the blues.

You get it, two rules. One for liberals and one for the rest of us scum.

[f.sciarrillo]

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.

[Hawk]

So, if I have private property and two people come up to want to get on, one being a black and one being white. If I don't allow either of them to go on, what does that make me?

As usual Frank, you don't get it. Your Party is private. A business owner owns a public restaurant. How in hell can you confuse the difference between the two ? If you own a public restaurant and it's allowed to be a whites only restaurant, that is Libertarianism and that is the discussion.

I know the difference, and not all restaurants are public. There was mention of private property in a few of the earlier posts, and that is what I was making a point about.

You didn't answer like I thought you would. But that is o.k. I can expect that from you.

We're talking about PUBLIC accomidations. Yes Frank they are privately owned BUT open to the general public.

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.

[Hawk]

In your privately owned business, you can hire or not hire anyone you choose, based on your employment needs.

Bill wants the state to tell you who you can or can not hire. Except for Bill, who has no black musicians in his band, even though he plays "black" music, the blues.

You get it, two rules. One for liberals and one for the rest of us scum.

Joe, why is it that you have to resort to personal distorted insults ?

If you have been following, I am against affirmative action and for hiring relative to talent level. I am against a whites only establishment.

[f.sciarrillo]

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

[Hawk]

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...?

[Banned]

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?

[Hawk]

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.