Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so you've covered a small portion of businesses in alabama. now you need to get the rest of businesses in the rest of the south.

keep going.
Click to expand...
Sorry Super Silver Haze has priority, go put the gerbils to bed and don't forget to wear your diapers.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Here's a few racist state laws for you...

Created by Martin Luther King, Jr.,National Historic Site Interpretive Staff.

Click to see larger image. ( K)
.

From the 1880s into the 1960s, a majority of American states enforced segregation through "Jim Crow" laws (so called after a black character in minstrel shows). From Delaware to California, and from North Dakota to Texas, many states (and cities, too) could impose legal punishments on people for consorting with members of another race. The most common types of laws forbade intermarriage and ordered business owners and public institutions to keep their black and white clientele separated.
Here is a sampling of laws from various states:

Nurses No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed. Alabama

yaddyadda

Intermarriage The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void. Arizona
Click to expand...
Yep, there were a lot of laws that were struck down by the civil rights act and the courts during some turbulent years. Practically all of the blood shed during this struggle was by those opposing segregation. I hope that the image you tried to post but didn't quite manage to get onto your reply was to honor MLK. He was a great man and his passing was a real loss to the nation. I'm glad that we both can celebrate his successes.

I think that in this discussion we have a lot we can agree upon. For example, we agree that Jim Crow laws and the repressive conditions imposed upon people of color in many parts of this nation were evil acts and wrong. We agree that this had to be eliminated. In another discussion, I agreed that for the most part, a small business is able to run a black person off without repercussion. I think we agree that this would be stupid and wrong but there isn't anybody that's going to stop this from happening, so property rights aren't an issue here. Also, as UB has put forth to you many times, larger institutions like golf clubs and fitness centers can declare themselves private clubs and so they can also continue on with the actions that we agree are stupid and wrong without violating the property rights that you espouse.

But what about public-private entities such as Banks? Would it be OK for Wells Fargo, B of A, and other big banks to discriminate against a person based upon the color of their skin? This form of discrimination has caused great hardship and harm. These big banks can't exist without public backing. Why shouldn't the government require banks to treat everybody the same, regardless of ethnicity or sexual orientation as one condition for their backing. How about airlines? Most airports are government-owned and so are the airways for that matter. Why shouldn't the govt require equal treatment to airline passengers as a precondition to being allowed to use the airport?

Regarding privately owned public businesses, the issue isn't as simple as "Joe Cracker Bait Store must serve blacks".
In the middle of Yazoo County, nobody is going to insist on this, not even the black people living nearby. When the only grocery store in a neighborhood discriminates against blacks (and yes, this is still happening today), it causes hardship and economic loss at the very least. I think where we part ways pertains to what the govt can and should be doing regarding that last point. A sticking point is proving discrimination. If this can be proven, the current law SAYS that that grocery store cannot discriminate and the govt will take legal action to enforce the law. I do not see how anybody is harmed by requiring respectful and equal treatment of everybody that wants to go into that store and buy something. Its too bad that the govt had to mandate this but our history shows that people don't always do the intelligent and right things. In this case, the rights of the many supersede the right of a stupid grocery clerk. Thus far, our society and the courts uphold anti discrimination laws. Unlike you, I'm stating what IS and not what I'D LIKE TO BE. If the conditions were reversed and anti discrimination laws were not in place, I would side with those that want to conduct their daily legal affairs in a respectful environment. And so would begin my struggle to put in place anti discrimination law. Perhaps, in this matter, we disagree and I think we will always do so.
 
Last edited:
Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yep, there were a lot of laws that were struck down by the civil rights act and the courts during some turbulent years. Practically all of the blood shed during this struggle was by those opposing segregation. I hope that the image you tried to post but didn't quite manage to get onto your reply was to honor MLK. He was a great man and his passing was a real loss to the nation. I'm glad that we both can celebrate his successes.

I think that in this discussion we have a lot we can agree upon. For example, we agree that Jim Crow laws and the repressive conditions imposed upon people of color in many parts of this nation were evil acts and wrong. We agree that this had to be eliminated. In another discussion, I agreed that for the most part, a small business is able to run a black person off without repercussion. I think we agree that this would be stupid and wrong but there isn't anybody that's going to stop this from happening, so property rights aren't an issue here. Also, as UB has put forth to you many times, larger institutions like golf clubs and fitness centers can declare themselves private clubs and so they can also continue on with the actions that we agree are stupid and wrong without violating the property rights that you espouse.

But what about public-private entities such as Banks? Would it be OK for Wells Fargo, B of A, and other big banks to discriminate against a person based upon the color of their skin? This form of discrimination has caused great hardship and harm. These big banks can't exist without public backing. Why shouldn't the government require banks to treat everybody the same, regardless of ethnicity or sexual orientation as one condition for their backing. How about airlines? Most airports are government-owned and so are the airways for that matter. Why shouldn't the govt require equal treatment to airline passengers as a precondition to being allowed to use the airport?

Regarding privately owned public businesses, the issue isn't as simple as "Joe Cracker Bait Store must serve blacks".
In the middle of Yazoo County, nobody is going to insist on this, not even the black people living nearby. When the only grocery store in a neighborhood discriminates against blacks (and yes, this is still happening today), it causes hardship and economic loss at the very least. I think where we part ways pertains to what the govt can and should be doing regarding that last point. A sticking point is proving discrimination. If this can be proven, the current law SAYS that that grocery store cannot discriminate and the govt will take legal action to enforce the law. I do not see how anybody is harmed by requiring respectful and equal treatment of everybody that wants to go into that store and buy something. Its too bad that the govt had to mandate this but our history shows that people don't always do the intelligent and right things. In this case, the rights of the many supersede the right of a stupid grocery clerk. Thus far, our society and the courts uphold anti discrimination laws. Unlike you, I'm stating what IS and not what I'D LIKE TO BE. If the conditions were reversed and anti discrimination laws were not in place, I would side with those that want to conduct their daily legal affairs in a respectful environment. And so would begin my struggle to put in place anti discrimination law. Perhaps, in this matter, we disagree and I think we will always do so.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I dont even think you're Pinworm, your insults are too weak with no humour attached at all.

You're just a Buck-tard now :(
Click to expand...
your preceding insults strike me as very weak, and have no accompanying humor whatsoever.

if you want to insult, do it right. start a whisper campaign.

of course, when you are only 4'11'', it is very hard to whisper into someone's ear without a chair or stepstool to help you up.

condolences on that, y diminutive little anti-semitic loverboi.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you are saying that outlawing the harmful racist practices that you now advocate for was an offensive act.

you are saying that ending forced segregation was an offensive act.

you are a piece of garbage.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying ending forced segregation and replacing it with a system that forces people to associate on private property is not a good solution. In both cases I am advocating that the force used is the problem. You are a drooling floor shitter and not very good at defending your arguments, that's why you conflate mine.

I think people should not be forced to be segregated or integrated by a third party, all people own themselves and are free to make those choices themselves.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Pinworm said:
Does it just suck to be you or what?
Click to expand...

It's great to be me. I have good relations with my family and friends and do my best to be helpful and polite to others and build a voluntary and peaceful world....plus I'm a pretty good gardener and share the fruits of my labor with hungry people.

I hope you are happy being you. May you always be near a clean bathroom when you need one.
 
overgrowem

overgrowem

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, I am saying ending forced segregation and replacing it with a system that forces people to associate on private property is not a good solution. In both cases I am advocating that the force used is the problem. You are a drooling floor shitter and not very good at defending your arguments, that's why you conflate mine.

I think people should not be forced to be segregated or integrated by a third party, all people own themselves and are free to make those choices themselves.
Click to expand...
Sigma Alpha Epsilon agrees.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yep, there were a lot of laws that were struck down by the civil rights act and the courts during some turbulent years. Practically all of the blood shed during this struggle was by those opposing segregation. I hope that the image you tried to post but didn't quite manage to get onto your reply was to honor MLK. He was a great man and his passing was a real loss to the nation. I'm glad that we both can celebrate his successes.

I think that in this discussion we have a lot we can agree upon. For example, we agree that Jim Crow laws and the repressive conditions imposed upon people of color in many parts of this nation were evil acts and wrong. We agree that this had to be eliminated. In another discussion, I agreed that for the most part, a small business is able to run a black person off without repercussion. I think we agree that this would be stupid and wrong but there isn't anybody that's going to stop this from happening, so property rights aren't an issue here. Also, as UB has put forth to you many times, larger institutions like golf clubs and fitness centers can declare themselves private clubs and so they can also continue on with the actions that we agree are stupid and wrong without violating the property rights that you espouse.

But what about public-private entities such as Banks? Would it be OK for Wells Fargo, B of A, and other big banks to discriminate against a person based upon the color of their skin? This form of discrimination has caused great hardship and harm. These big banks can't exist without public backing. Why shouldn't the government require banks to treat everybody the same, regardless of ethnicity or sexual orientation as one condition for their backing. How about airlines? Most airports are government-owned and so are the airways for that matter. Why shouldn't the govt require equal treatment to airline passengers as a precondition to being allowed to use the airport?

Regarding privately owned public businesses, the issue isn't as simple as "Joe Cracker Bait Store must serve blacks".
In the middle of Yazoo County, nobody is going to insist on this, not even the black people living nearby. When the only grocery store in a neighborhood discriminates against blacks (and yes, this is still happening today), it causes hardship and economic loss at the very least. I think where we part ways pertains to what the govt can and should be doing regarding that last point. A sticking point is proving discrimination. If this can be proven, the current law SAYS that that grocery store cannot discriminate and the govt will take legal action to enforce the law. I do not see how anybody is harmed by requiring respectful and equal treatment of everybody that wants to go into that store and buy something. Its too bad that the govt had to mandate this but our history shows that people don't always do the intelligent and right things. In this case, the rights of the many supersede the right of a stupid grocery clerk. Thus far, our society and the courts uphold anti discrimination laws. Unlike you, I'm stating what IS and not what I'D LIKE TO BE. If the conditions were reversed and anti discrimination laws were not in place, I would side with those that want to conduct their daily legal affairs in a respectful environment. And so would begin my struggle to put in place anti discrimination law. Perhaps, in this matter, we disagree and I think we will always do so.
Click to expand...

Big banks don't exist with "public backing". They exist thru bullshit cronyistic laws and regulations that discourage competitive currencies and competition. Innovations have been intentionally limited to facilitate big banks making money, not to help people.

The government is an institution that relies on coercion to exist and you think they should be the one to keep people from hurting each other? Really???? More people have died (been murdered) and had their property stolen via coercive government and you think they are the great and wise nanny who will teach mankind to get along? That is demonstrably false.

Believing that the institution that has caused the greatest harm in the world will somehow solve problems is a fairy tale. Can you say "drug war" ?


Endorsing what is, a system base in coercion, can never lead to peace, since there is already coercion involved at the onset,. therefore it is impossible. Polishing a coercive government may make it shiny, but it will still be a coercive turd when your arm gets tired of polishing it.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, I am saying ending forced segregation and replacing it with a system that forces people to associate on private property is not a good solution. In both cases I am advocating that the force used is the problem. You are a drooling floor shitter and not very good at defending your arguments, that's why you conflate mine.

I think people should not be forced to be segregated or integrated by a third party, all people own themselves and are free to make those choices themselves.
Click to expand...
you called ending segregation an "offensive act".

i am so sorry you are offended by ending segregation.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you called ending segregation an "offensive act".

i am so sorry you are offended by ending segregation.
Click to expand...

Wrong again Meathead. I called ending forced segregation a good thing. I also called forced association a bad thing....rapist.

By the way, you're still losing when you conflate the other guys argument. Why do you suck at debating so much?
 
G

GrowUrOwnDank

Well-Known Member
Well,I wasn't gone say anything. But, if I was the judge, I woild tell the Sheriff if he don't like policing what the people of Colorado voted to make marijuana legal in the state. Then he can just quit his job and MOVE STRAIGHT THE FUCK UP OUT OF THE STATE! So they can get a real man in there to do the job without whining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top