Senator Rand Paul supports de-crim for Cannabis

[UncleBuck]

Who has the moral authority to make people associate or prevent them from disassociating?

If people are endowed with inalienable rights to their own life, liberty and property, how can another entity force them to act in certain ways if they are not inclined to ? Wouldn't the entity forcing people to associate or to disassociate be violating the first set of rights (life, liberty, property) of the business owners?

it's actually the business owners violating the rights of the public they are supposedly open to.

the practices prohibited by title II caused demonstrable harm to segments of the population.

you only have a right to swing your fist to the point where my face is and no further. even in your own business.

 

[Dr Kynes]

if it only hurt feelings, that's one thing. but it does more than that. it causes demonstrable harm to the discriminated parties.

well, the SCOTUS thought so at least. which is why they upheld title II.

but who needs that pesky constitution, eh? who says your right to swing your fist has to end at my face?

not selling to somebody is NOT racism,, nor does it cause harm. the US does not trade with cuba, does this practice somehow harm cuba? if so, then why is mexico, with whom we do trade, complaining about how much harm trade with the US is causing them?

the very nature of free markets is the VOLUNTARY nature of the market and deciding who you will or will not do business with based on your OWN reasons, not those of that "Inelecteble group of people" who you alternately despise and lionize depending on whether you like their latest assault on our constitution or not.

we also do not trade with iran, does this mean iran is our victim because we dont buy their dates and oil and sell them iPhones and pornography? of course it's racist, but everything is racist, but why praytrell is BHO allowed to be racist against other nations, yet we as persons and citizens are not permitted to have unpopular thoughts?

youre still engaged in the left's favorite game, Pin the Tail on the Hypocrisy.

number one, you're giving racism a platform. you're legitimizing racism by giving it a platform. we don't need to legitimize racism. we don't need to encourage a practice which causes harm to others.

so unpopular ideas should be purged from our minds, and we should all share a single common ideology... who chooses that permissible ideology? who examines the thoughts of every person to ensure that no impure ideas enter the minds of the proletariat? perhaps if there were some sort of camp, where those who hold impure ideas could be re-educated.... someplace far from the population at large, someplace where these impure ideas will not have a chance to spread. perhaps some kind of Gulag-like institution... yeah that sounds good.

number two, see part one of this reply. allowing private businesses that are supposedly 'open to the public' to block out sections of the public based on arbitrary skin color or nationality causes harm to others. it's unconstitutional.

i can't for the life of me figure out why so many people stick up for racism and unconstitutional practices while preaching to me about the constitution and freedom and liberty.

it's pretty clear that it makes us less free when we have to cater to the bigotry of racists.

but suppressing any ideas or thoughts which you find offensive will make us so much more free.

9 out of 10 Secret Policemen agree, gulags and public stonings have a salutary effect on the public's submission to the wisdom of the Dear Leader, Great Imam, Pope, Party, Big Brother, Der Fuhrer, Il Duce, Comrade Stalin, Uncle Mao etc.

 

[UncleBuck]

not selling to somebody is NOT racism,, nor does it cause harm.

i just stopped reading at this point, since this is demonstrably false and arguable retarded.

title II stopped praqctices that were based solely on racism, and which caused demonstrable harm to segments of the population.

 

[Rob Roy]

it's actually the business owners violating the rights of the public they are supposedly open to.

the practices prohibited by title II caused demonstrable harm to segments of the population.

you only have a right to swing your fist to the point where my face is and no further. even in your own business.

Nope, you've got the cart before the horse.

It seems that if a right is INALIENABLE, to put up statutory law that contradicts it, is in fact ALIENATING a right. Now before you can throw the racist card you keep up your sleeve, I'll go on record (again) as saying a person that won't do business with another due to race is pretty fucking stupid, but to MAKE that same person use THEIR property in a way they do not agree with is a property right violation.

A neutral action is when a person owns something and decides to use it how they will to the inclusion or exclusion of others if that is what the OWNER desires.

A person making rules about their OWN body or property is not initiating aggression. An act of initiating aggression is to leave your property and tell others what they WILL or WILL NOT do with their property or their body. That's what the government does when it tells people what they will do and with whom they can or cannot associate. Besides isn't it kind of stupid that the organization that has practiced the most blatant racism should try to set standards for how people will interact?

I don't have the right to swing my fist at your nose unless it is a defensive act. If I ask you to leave my property and you don't, do I have the right to swing my fist then?

 

[PurpleBuz]

James
Every White country on the planet is forced to become multicultural and multiracial.
EVERY white country is told to end its own race and culture.
No one asks that of ANY non-White country. Immigration and forced-assimilation is for ALL & ONLY White countries.
Anti-Whites call themselves "anti-racist", but their words & actions lead to the genocide of only one group: White people.
The true goal of anti-racism is to genocide my people.
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.
March 22, 2013 04:59 pm at 4:59 pm |

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-close-to-deal-on-immigration-plan/?hpt=po_c2

This is how "patriots" think of themselves

There is a reason for all of that. It was the European attempt to colonize, rule and enslave the rest of the world which is now failing because eventually the meek shall inherit the earth. And by meek I ain't talking about a bunch of humble poor christians, but rather the largest burgeoning populations in the world.

 

[Doer]

The right to swing your fist brings, my Right to land a retaliatory block/strike. Doesn't matter if you landed or not.

 

[DonPepe]

I don't agree with most of what Americans say, but I will always stand up for your right to say it. As long as i still have the right to disagree with racism, it is only fair for someone else to have to right to be racist (philosophically speaking). Who am i to tell you who or what you should or shouldn't like.

 

[UncleBuck]

Nope, you've got the cart before the horse.

It seems that if a right is INALIENABLE, to put up statutory law that contradicts it, is in fact ALIENATING a right. Now before you can throw the racist card you keep up your sleeve, I'll go on record (again) as saying a person that won't do business with another due to race is pretty fucking stupid, but to MAKE that same person use THEIR property in a way they do not agree with is a property right violation.

A neutral action is when a person owns something and decides to use it how they will to the inclusion or exclusion of others if that is what the OWNER desires.

A person making rules about their OWN body or property is not initiating aggression. An act of initiating aggression is to leave your property and tell others what they WILL or WILL NOT do with their property or their body. That's what the government does when it tells people what they will do and with whom they can or cannot associate. Besides isn't it kind of stupid that the organization that has practiced the most blatant racism should try to set standards for how people will interact?

I don't have the right to swing my fist at your nose unless it is a defensive act. If I ask you to leave my property and you don't, do I have the right to swing my fist then?

why do so many idiots defend this racist nonsense?

when businesses that claimed to be open to the public refused to serve segments of the public, they caused harm to the discriminated parties. the discriminated parties were left with an inferior selection of goods and services, or higher prices for the same goods and services, or no access at all to the goods or services.

that's causing harm. that's the fist meeting the face right there.

it was a practice based in racism that hurt people. the constitutionality of title II has been upheld.

that objection to title II is so far out of the mainstream yet so beloved here by so many just goes to show many fringe extremists and racists we have here. just disgusting.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't agree with most of what Americans say, but I will always stand up for your right to say it. As long as i still have the right to disagree with racism, it is only fair for someone else to have to right to be racist (philosophically speaking). Who am i to tell you who or what you should or shouldn't like.

people are still be allowed to be racist all they want, they are just not allowed to let their racism effect others in a negative way.

jujst as i am allowed to dislike gefelte fish, but that does not give me the right to subtly sabotage the gefelte fish factory by unplugging their machines or changing the locks on the doors.

 

[Doer]

There is a reason for all of that. It was called European attempt to colonize and rule and enslave the rest of the world which is now failing because eventually the meek shall inherit the earth. And by meek I ain't talking about a bunch of humble poor christians, but rather the largest burgeoning populations in the world.

And if we did not have a Consitution that allowed us to win against Slavery, did not have a President with "vast Powers" then the race thing, will be allowed to pay back in blood against whites,

White births are below the other catagories, white population will soon be a miority, but if you take the word of some thought leaders, no one will be safe from lynching until the PaY IS bACK.

Islam wants payback, Liberation Theology wants payback. The Militas want a race war, even still, and so do the Panthers. And even Charlie Manson would like to live to see that day.

WW2 is not even over, or the Cold War....just simmering along with N. Korea and Afghanistan. Pay Back. Iran decided long ago, as did the Brotherhood. Pay Back.

 

[Rob Roy]

why do so many idiots defend this racist nonsense?

when businesses that claimed to be open to the public refused to serve segments of the public, they caused harm to the discriminated parties. the discriminated parties were left with an inferior selection of goods and services, or higher prices for the same goods and services, or no access at all to the goods or services.

that's causing harm. that's the fist meeting the face right there.

it was a practice based in racism that hurt people. the constitutionality of title II has been upheld.

that objection to title II is so far out of the mainstream yet so beloved here by so many just goes to show many fringe extremists and racists we have here. just disgusting.

First of all, I can't answer why people defend racism. Some may have different reasons. I can answer the real question though, who owns your stuff? You do.

I'm not defending racism. I'm defending property rights. If a person owns something, they can share it, use it, break it, fuck it, lick it or let you fuck it and lick it, IF they decide to let you do these things. If you or a third party MAKE them let you fuck their pony and they didn't want you to, YOU and/ or the THIRD party violated their property rights.

Supreme Court decisions are political decisions and often fall short of protecting anybodies liberty or property rights. Citing the Supreme Court as a valid source when the INSTITUTION that these judges work for routinely violates rights is kind of funny.

 

[Rob Roy]

And if we did not have a Consitution that allowed us to win against Slavery, did not have a President with "vast Powers"
then the race thing, will be allowed to pay back in blood against whites, White births are below the other catagories, white population will soon be a miority, but if you take the word of some thought leaders, no one will be safe from lynching until the PaY IS bACK.

Islam wants payback, Liberation Theology wants payback. The Militas want a race war, even still, and so do the Panthers. And even Charlie Manson would like to live to see that day.

WW2 is not even over, or the Cold War....just simmering along with N. Korea and Afghanistan. Pay Back. Iran decided long ago, as did the Brotherhood. Pay Back.

You've got the division of populaces wrong, focusing on race is a rabbit hole that leads to more stupidity. The real division is between those that use force to control others and those that don't. All the rest is a diversion. Assholes and good people come in all colors, deeds, not color of skin should be the determinant of how a person is viewed.

 

[PurpleBuz]

First of all, I can't answer why people defend racism. Some may have different reasons. I can answer the real question though, who owns your stuff? You do.

I'm not defending racism. I'm defending property rights. If a person owns something, they can share it, use it, break it, fuck it, lick it or let you fuck it and lick it, IF they decide to let you do these things. If you or a third party MAKE them let you fuck their pony and they didn't want you to, YOU and/ or the THIRD party violated their property rights.

Supreme Court decisions are political decisions and often fall short of protecting anybodies liberty or property rights. Citing the Supreme Court as a valid source when the INSTITUTION that these judges work for routinely violates rights is kind of funny.

Private Property rights are very important to be preserved. BUT when you run a company that serves the public, and the property involved is open to the public then the property rights are very different. Truly Private clubs have a lot more freedom to exclude\include who they serve.

 

[UncleBuck]

First of all, I can't answer why people defend racism.

then why defend the practice since it is based 100% in racism?

property rights is the stupidest and most transparent excuse there could ever be. the businesses in question are the ones who say their property is open to the public. they just want to be able to exclude parts of the public they are racist or bigoted against.

when you narrow it down to title II, screaming "property rights" is akin to saying "hey just let me be racist on my own property".

no. fuck you. you can be racist when and where it doesn't cause harm to others.

and again, fuck you.

 

[Rob Roy]

Private Property rights are very important to be preserved. BUT when you run a company that serves the public, and the property involved is open to the public then the property rights are very different. Truly Private clubs have a lot more freedom to exclude\include who they serve.

The public, either as a "group" or as a sole individual has no right to violate the decisions you make about the things you own. Just as you, nor any group of people have no right to violate another persons property.

You are correct that what occurs on a regular basis is government backed property rights violations.
Simply because these violations of ownership are routinely done and sanctified by government via statutory law doesn't change anything about what constitutes ownership. Government can and does violate the indiviiduals property rights by insisting how that same individual will use his property. Either a person has ownership / control over their own things or they don't. IF they don't have the right to make choices about their own property, then they don't own it, do they?


If they do, you don't own anything, but that which a third party says you do.

 

[Doer]

Haoli walks into a well recommended, local bait shop on Kauai, (it was me) Guy is stilling in the back, looks up. Looks back at his newspaper, and just sat there. He muttered something, under his breath. A very large creature, indeed, cutting bait in the back, steps across to where we can see him, knife in hand and just stands there.

The same Haoli finds himself in the local cruise scene, in a very small local bar and found a stool near the door listening to Reggae. A very sweet little local gal, about 100 pounds, is kinda grooving along with me and the next thing I know she sort of dancing , by swinging my hands and bouncing on my toes, and beginning to crawl against my lap. ME LIKEEE!

Hmmm.....big shove on my shoulder with what seemed like a hip? I looked up to the left and here is a giant among men, regarding me with a neutral expression. Boom. Smashed on the other side. <gulp> Look right. His twin. And his expression is a bit more telling. He held my eyes, then glanced at the girl, back at me, and to the door, just like that.

So, I fought them all, the racists! (no I slunk out on my best behavior and did not look at the girl)

Oh, and I didn't get any bait sold to me either.

 

[UncleBuck]

The public, either as a "group" or as a sole individual has no right to violate the decisions you make about the things you own. Just as you, nor any group of people have no right to violate another persons property.

You are correct that what occurs on a regular basis is government backed property rights violations.
Simply because these violations of ownership are routinely done and sanctified by government via statutory law doesn't change anything about what constitutes ownership. Government can and does violate the indiviiduals property rights by insisting how that same individual will use his property. Either a person has ownership / control over their own things or they don't. IF they don't have the right to make choices about their own property, then they don't own it, do they?


If they do, you don't own anything, but that which a third party says you do.

they do have every right to make those decisions. private clubs are not under the jurisdiction of title II. every business owner has the right to make that decision.

if they make the decision to be open to the public though, they have to be open to the public without excluding and causing harm.

 

[Rob Roy]

then why defend the practice since it is based 100% in racism?

property rights is the stupidest and most transparent excuse there could ever be. the businesses in question are the ones who say their property is open to the public. they just want to be able to exclude parts of the public they are racist or bigoted against.

when you narrow it down to title II, screaming "property rights" is akin to saying "hey just let me be racist on my own property".

no. fuck you. you can be racist when and where it doesn't cause harm to others.

and again, fuck you.

Does a prostitute have the right to deny service to some prospective clients he/she would prefer not to do business with? I say yes.

Who owns your property ? Who should be able to make the rules concerning YOUR property and YOUR body ? You should.

Your fuck you, would have more impact if you weren't always insulting and straw manning. I give it a 2.5 on a scale of 10. Now, how come you never answer the questions and run to insults when somebody makes a point you can't intelligently refute?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Haoli walks into a well recommended, local bait shop on Kauai, (it was me) Guy is stilling in the back, looks up. Looks back at his newspaper, and just sat there. He muttered something, under his breath. A very large creature, indeed, cutting bait in the back, steps across to where we can see him, knife in hand and just stands there.

The same Haoli finds himself in the local cruise scene, in a very small local bar and found a stool near the door listening to Reggae. A very sweet little local gal, about 100 pounds, is kinda grooving along with me and the next thing I know she sort of dancing , by swinging my hands and bouncing on my toes, and beginning to crawl against my lap. ME LIKEEE!

Hmmm.....big shove on my shoulder with what seemed like a hip? I looked up to the left and here is a giant among men, regarding me with a neutral expression. Boom. Smashed on the other side. <gulp> Look right. His twin. And his expression is a bit more telling. He held my eyes, then glanced at the girl, back at me, and to the door, just like that.

So, I fought them all, the racists! (no I slunk out on my best behavior and did not look at the girl)

Oh, and I didn't get any bait sold to me either.

that was not racism, that was "Social Justice" and they were just leveling the playing field due to 400 years of slavery, 500 years of oppression and 35 years of The Jeffersons in syndication.

racism can only be practiced by honkeys crackers, rednecks, and hillbillies. minorities are incabapable of racism.

you evil white devil.

 

[UncleBuck]

Does a prostitute have the right to deny service to some prospective clients he/she would prefer not to do business with? I say yes.

Who owns your property ? Who should be able to make the rules concerning YOUR property and YOUR body ? You should.

Your fuck you, would have more impact if you weren't always insulting and straw manning. I give it a 2.5 on a scale of 10. Now, how come you never answer the questions and run to insults when somebody makes a point you can't intelligently refute?

let me know when you make a point that requires intelligent refutation.

if you're open to the public, you serve the public. if you don't feel like serving the darkies and jews and gays, call yourself a private club.

don't try to tell us that your property is open to the public and then try to deny members of the public though. that'll earn ya a "fuck you".