POLITICAL THREAD

[Willy4UK]

At the same time, it's pretty ridiculous to flip the world upside down for a group who makes up 3 percent of the country and for trans and their bathroom laws when they make up 0.3 percent..

It's not flipping anything. It's correcting a flawed mindset. If we can't start on the grounds that all people are created equal (that does not include religious beliefs- That is irrelevant) then the debate cannot start from a non-biased perspective.

 

[-LEK-]

Jesus, you moron. Yes, it's still discrimination.

Rather than silencing you, I'd rather you continue to post stupid things so everyone knows how dumb you are. Same as I'd rather not legally prevent someone from discriminating against people. I'd rather they discriminate openly so I know who to avoid.

Bill, just because someone calls out you and others for stupidity doesn't mean you get to call them stupid. I know you like to use reverse logical fallacies, but doesn't make them true.

Your argument was destroyed 60 years ago. Ahh feeble minds...

 

[jamo0001]

"Business owners should be allowed to discriminate!" -People Who Are Unlikely To Suffer Discrimination

 

[Bill Cosby]

"Business owners should be allowed to discriminate!" -People Who Are Unlikely To Suffer Discrimination

This you Jamo?

 

[jamo0001]

Not clicking on any video where a dude has hair that long.

The market would not tolerate business practices that were blatantly prejudiced against whites, against either of the sexes, or any other group so large that it would disrupt the flow of goods and services. However, it might not correct practices that were targeted against relatively small groups.

 

[Willy4UK]

This you Jamo?

View embedded media

hahahaha that guy is hilarious.

 

[JDHoss]

"Business owners should be allowed to discriminate!" -People Who Are Unlikely To Suffer Discrimination

I'm one who is unlikely to suffer discrimination, but how about this?

A private business may discriminate against patrons with the following caveats:

* Any federally funded small business loan, no matter how small, or no matter if the loan is paid off, would disqualify them from their freedom to discriminate.

* By law, their discrimination policy has to be prominently displayed or stated in ALL of their advertisements. Print (including flyers or Yellow Pages), social media, radio and television. No exceptions.

* By law, their discrimination policy has to be prominently displayed at the entrance to their business, and on any signage, including the parking lot.

 

[jamo0001]

sounds like the Russians are taking the Paddock's approach to foreign fighters seeking to join ISIS/et al.:

 

[Willy4UK]

I'm one who is unlikely to suffer discrimination, but how about this?

A private business may discriminate against patrons with the following caveats:

* Any federally funded small business loan, no matter how small, or no matter if the loan is paid off, would disqualify them from their freedom to discriminate.

* By law, their discrimination policy has to be prominently displayed or stated in ALL of their advertisements. Print (including flyers or Yellow Pages), social media, radio and television. No exceptions.

* By law, their discrimination policy has to be prominently displayed at the entrance to their business, and on any signage, including the parking lot.

The very root of human foundation has to start from the premise that all men are created equal. If we don't start from that premise then we can't really have an honest discussion about it.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

This you Jamo?

View embedded media

So much dumb in that video.

 

[JDHoss]

The very root of human foundation has to start from the premise that all men are created equal. If we don't start from that premise then we can't really have an honest discussion about it.

I believe that as well. I'm sick of people using their religion/beliefs to mask their bigotry towards their fellow human beings. Give them the freedom to be open about it, and that gives me a a clearer picture of who I'm not doing business with.

 

[Willy4UK]

I believe that as well. I'm sick of people using their religion/beliefs to mask their bigotry towards their fellow human beings. Give them the freedom to be open about it, and that gives me a a clearer picture of who I'm not doing business with.

Well, you're a sensible person JD. But the problem is now that the Liberal left have bastardized and manipulated this issue to the point they want to end the First Amendment by making "everything offensive". Which is the worst place this issue needs to be, because it takes us away from the original discussion "are we equal or not".

That's sad.

 

[KopiKat]

The very root of human foundation has to start from the premise that all men are created equal. If we don't start from that premise then we can't really have an honest discussion about it.

That is certainly the civilized human concept, virtuous and moral, yet one that is not shared by a large portion of an less civilized world, dilute prone by "virtue" of liberal immigration policies throughout the civilized western sphere, bitter irony to the ethical nature of men who have perpetuated that value for generations. In new applications are opportunities to improve, and political chance - where in companion breaths are spoken you shall have rainbows on your cake, and you shall welcome new neighbors who must wish to kill you for what your rainbows mean.

 

[qwesley]

Pope says to fight terror with love.
Obama says to fight terror by taking in more refugees.
ISIS blows up Pakistani children celebrating Easter

 

[fuzz77]

And that's where you and I differ. I understand that by defending one's right to express their hate, I'm not agreeing with their hate.

To me, defending one's right to live their life as they choose (talking in a non criminal law context), even if that includes discriminating against people, is not defending discrimination. People should have the freedom to be idiots and say dumb things, and that should be put on display for everyone, not silenced.

There's nuances there you and LEK just don't understand.

So by your take here, we were wrong to end segregation, and to implement EO laws that were used to deny blacks opportunities for employment, allowed employers to pay lower wages to women and blacks, kept neighborhoods lilly white by denying access to housing...
After all, when you are the majority and your "express(ions) of hate" are widely accepted by others in the majority then there is little down side to doing so.
When I was young there was an elderly black man who lived on my grandfather's farm in Missouri. The man was born a slave owned by my great-great grandfather until the slaves were freed after the end of the war. His family stayed on an sharecropped my great-great grandfather's land. I was only about 6 yrs old when he died...he was said to be 101 and was supposedly the only negro who lived in Madison county Missouri at that time. Just checked the most recent census data and as of 2010 blacks were 0.3% of the population which would put the black population in that county at about 36. The surrounding counties are all about the same.
So what is the down side for businesses in areas like if they were to discriminate?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Bigblue, I'd like to hear your opinion on this from a legal stand point

That already sort of happens in terms of property tax. Property taxes go towards funding local public schools. Unless you have a child going to said schools, the system is collecting a tax from you for which you could never benefit. Thats not the same, but close.

Traditionally, tax breaks through the IRC have been notoriously guilty of "social engineering". Basically, giving tax breaks based on desired behavior. I dont have a problem with it, generally, since participation and reward are both voluntary for the actor. But....Im also not a fan of "the man" deciding what behavior is desirable and rewarding it (ie home ownership, marriage, etc).

I could see that here. Under a free market system, the business having the option to discriminate but if it does so then its tax burden would be higher. But if thats the case......is it truly a free market solution? Wouldnt the tax incentive be a false influence on the market? Probably so.

Pope says to fight terror with love.
Obama says to fight terror by taking in more refugees.
ISIS blows up Pakistani children celebrating Easter

Like I posted several months ago, we need to just pull out of the whole area. This is not like anything we've faced before. Its not an enemy, its a belief. The belief only dies if you kill all who believe it. Otherwise, it just spreads and gets new recruits to replace those we've killed; and it never ends. So killing any less than all of them is a waste of time. Even worse, every death gives them propaganda to recruit. So unless we wipe them all out, we're basically going in neutral at best, reverse at worst.

We dont have the stomach for that. Not anymore. And frankly, Im not so sure thats a bad thing. We need to pull out altogether, which will stop stoking the flames of their recruitment and eventually the fire will die down.

 

[Bill Derington]

I don't think us pulling out will stop it, they're goal is for Islam to dominate the World. That may not be PC, but it's true.

 

[KopiKat]

When I was young there was an elderly black man who lived on my grandfather's farm in Missouri. The man was born a slave owned by my great-great grandfather until the slaves were freed after the end of the war.

I wonder how that noble man would have felt if somebody could have told him that one day the plight of all his people would be put on equal status with the trendy wants of white homosexuals.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I don't think us pulling out will stop it, they're goal is for Islam to dominate the World. That may not be PC, but it's true.

I dont disagree thats their goal. But pulling out takes away their propaganda and reduces their ability to recruit. Out of curiosity, do you agree that only killing some of them does no good at best?

 

[Bill Derington]

I don't think killing all of them is what it would take. Just make them realize we could if we had too. Similar to how the war in the Pacific was fought.

They aren't going to stop at this point, it comes down to how many people are we willing to let die before we do something.

 

[fuzz77]

I wonder how that noble man would have felt if somebody could have told him that one day the plight of all his people would be put on equal status with the trendy wants of white homosexuals.

First, several are making the argument that people/businesses should be allowed to discriminate claiming that it would just expose their hate and correlating that it would be "bad for business".
Second, there are homosexuals of every race and creed and I'm sure they would all like to be free from persecution and hatred. Not just the trendy white ones. Whether or not any one individual sees and/or understands it, hatred and bigotry is always woven from the same cloth of ignorance.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I don't think killing all of them is what it would take. Just make them realize we could if we had too. Similar to how the war in the Pacific was fought.

They aren't going to stop at this point, it comes down to how many people are we willing to let die before we do something.

Im sure they realize we could kill them all. They also know we wont do it. We wont even stop bringing potential combatants over here willingly and putting them on the draw lol.

 

[fuzz77]

I don't think killing all of them is what it would take. Just make them realize we could if we had too. Similar to how the war in the Pacific was fought.

They aren't going to stop at this point, it comes down to how many people are we willing to let die before we do something.

The decision for Japan to surrender came down to convincing one person, the Emperor. ISIS and radical Islam isn't under the control of any one person or any government. We have killed thousands and continue to kill more most every day.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

First, several are making the argument that people/businesses should be allowed to discriminate claiming that it would just expose their hate and correlating that it would be "bad for business".
Second, there are homosexuals of every race and creed and I'm sure they would all like to be free from persecution and hatred. Not just the trendy white ones. Whether or not any one individual sees and/or understands it, hatred and bigotry is always woven from the same cloth of ignorance.

Your position is that government action is the best/only way to stop discrimination. You also recognize that government action was undertaken as far back as the 60's with the civil rights act of 1964. Government involvement in the area has only increased since then.

Yet.....here we are and race relations are at an incredibly low point. And states are passing individual laws allowing business owners to discriminate.

Theres no conclusion possible other than to admit government action is not working.

 

[Bill Derington]

Im sure they realize we could kill them all. They also know we wont do it. We wont even stop bringing potential combatants over here willingly and putting them on the draw lol.

By could if we had too, I meant the resolve to, not weaponry.

The belief that we're going to convince them to stop is naive. It's going to come to a head eventually.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Incorrect. Until the countries that have exported this terrorism have some skin in the game then it will continue. That's why Trump's idea to block ALL Muslims from entering this country was correct.

It is also correct (and provable by historic military standards) that you have to make these terrorists understand that their actions will have consequences at home visited upon the people they love, the places they worship, the villages, towns, and cities they grew up in and once called home.

War is ugly but once it is loosed then you MUST be strong enough to do what is necessary or you will lose. We didn't pick this war and it is time to start making the tough unpopular unpleasant decisions necessary to win it.

 

[Bill Derington]

The decision for Japan to surrender came down to convincing one person, the Emperor. ISIS and radical Islam isn't under the control of any one person or any government. We have killed thousands and continue to kill more most every day.

If you think we have waged war against terrorism like we did against Japan you're sorely mistaken.

We put the fear of God in Japan, we could wipe out their entire country...and more importantly would.
Their will to ever fight an offensive war again was wiped out.

You don't win wars by trying to win hearts and minds. It sounds nice, but it doesn't work. You shorten and limit Wars by being ruthless. If you aren't able to effectively do that then going to war shouldn't be an option.

 

[starchief5]

I think the war with Islamist extremism is going to be perpetual from this point on. It is a cult of death. They want to be killed for Allah - in that it is a guaranteed ticket into Paradise. I mean who wouldn't want that if they really believed that. And they really do believe that! It is a really wacky religion that Allah wants everybody to submit to him, or die now. Apparently he doesn't have the power to do the killing himself. He has to resort to ignorant suckers to do his dirty work for him.

We cannot defeat the belief. We can and should take the caliphate from them. It would be a bloody and nasty affair but a coalition of fed up nations could do it in a matter of weeks. You take away their training camps and a big part of their financial resources. They would still have their small cells and lone wolves but we are going to continue having these no matter what.

John McCain once said that you just can't walk away from these guys like we did in Vietnam. They just follow you home.

 

[fuzz77]

Your position is that government action is the best/only way to stop discrimination. You also recognize that government action was undertaken as far back as the 60's with the civil rights act of 1964. Government involvement in the area has only increased since then.

Yet.....here we are and race relations are at an incredibly low point. And states are passing individual laws allowing business owners to discriminate.

Theres no conclusion possible other than to admit government action is not working.

??? People are murdered every day, should we admit that laws against murder don't work?

To say that there hasn't been progress since 1964 is just plain ignorant. The fact that there is still room for improvement and the fact that recent events have brought that need to light exposing many claims that minority groups have made but could never prove. Whereas perhaps the last generation of minorities was willing to accept "some progress", today's generation wants to see the job completed.

No, government can't fix anything on its own but it can lend a hand in change.

 

[fuzz77]

If you think we have waged war against terrorism like we did against Japan you're sorely mistaken.

We put the fear of God in Japan, we could wipe out their entire country...and more importantly would.
Their will to ever fight an offensive war again was wiped out.

You don't win wars by trying to win hearts and minds. It sounds nice, but it doesn't work. You shorten and limit Wars by being ruthless. If you aren't able to effectively do that then going to war shouldn't be an option.

ISIS isn't a country, radical Islam isn't a nation. During WWII we were at war with a nation. Japan was the enemy. Terrorism doesn't exist within fixed borders. It has no central command.
If you have not noticed, ISIS is killing the Shia Muslims and others within the territory they control. We bombed Japanese cities because we were at war with Japan. Do you suggest we bomb Iraqi and Syrian cities when we aren't at war with Iraq or Syria? What about the ISIS sympathisers in Europe, or in New York, San Bernardino or any American city? Should we bomb Brussels because there are ISIS sympathisers that live there?

Good gawd man. Think about what you are saying. Waging war against a country, a uniformed army and against a radical ideology that has none of those things is like comparing apples and zebras.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

By could if we had too, I meant the resolve to, not weaponry.

The belief that we're going to convince them to stop is naive. It's going to come to a head eventually.

Noone will be able to stop their beliefs. So we either kill them all, or come home. We dont have the stomach for "kill them all" anymore.

??? People are murdered every day, should we admit that laws against murder don't work?

I think you just admitted that? I dont think your position had the effect you were hoping lol.

To say that there hasn't been progress since 1964 is just plain ignorant.

Who said theres not been progress? Noone said that.

the fact that recent events have brought that need to light exposing many claims that minority groups have made but could never prove

But what made this possible? It wasnt the law. It was technology and social media.

For someone who disagrees with me, youre doing a fine job arguing my point for me.

 

[fuzz77]

I think the war with Islamist extremism is going to be perpetual from this point on. It is a cult of death. They want to be killed for Allah - in that it is a guaranteed ticket into Paradise. I mean who wouldn't want that if they really believed that. And they really do believe that! It is a really wacky religion that Allah wants everybody to submit to him, or die now. Apparently he doesn't have the power to do the killing himself. He has to resort to ignorant suckers to do his dirty work for him.

We cannot defeat the belief. We can and should take the caliphate from them. It would be a bloody and nasty affair but a coalition of fed up nations could do it in a matter of weeks. You take away their training camps and a big part of their financial resources. They would still have their small cells and lone wolves but we are going to continue having these no matter what.

John McCain once said that you just can't walk away from these guys like we did in Vietnam. They just follow you home.

But that is more or less what we did in Iraq. Who fills the vacuum left behind? Who makes the Shia and Sunni play nice?
When asked about why during the first Gulf war why when we had the entire Iraqi army on the run out of Kuwait and could have easily marched into Baghdad General Norman Schwarzkopf said pretty much the same thing. That it would have created a giant power vacuum, that we would have broken Iraq and been responsible for the chaos that followed. It would have been a tar pit we would spend the next 100 years trying to exit.

 

[jamo0001]

I think the war with Islamist extremism is going to be perpetual from this point on.

until the Rapture, at least

 

[Bill Derington]

ISIS isn't a country, radical Islam isn't a nation. During WWII we were at war with a nation. Japan was the enemy. Terrorism doesn't exist within fixed borders. It has no central command.
If you have not noticed, ISIS is killing the Shia Muslims and others within the territory they control. We bombed Japanese cities because we were at war with Japan. Do you suggest we bomb Iraqi and Syrian cities when we aren't at war with Iraq or Syria? What about the ISIS sympathisers in Europe, or in New York, San Bernardino or any American city? Should we bomb Brussels because there are ISIS sympathisers that live there?

Good gawd man. Think about what you are saying. Waging war against a country, a uniformed army and against a radical ideology that has none of those things is like comparing apples and zebras.

So you're for the keep doing things the same way and expect a different outcome frame of mind.

We didn't just wage war against a uniformed Army fuzz. We firebombed cities, intentionally inflicting mass casualties against citizens that were not in uniform.

What I'm saying is we can eliminate the caliphate, as long as it's maintained its going to draw fighters.

Do you want innocent people to continue being killed? Simply because they aren't Muslim, are you ok with that? Because it's going to continue until they succeed in killing ALOT of innocent people. Hopefully it won't be anyone we love.

 

[Bill Derington]

But that is more or less what we did in Iraq. Who fills the vacuum left behind? Who makes the Shia and Sunni play nice?
When asked about why during the first Gulf war why when we had the entire Iraqi army on the run out of Kuwait and could have easily marched into Baghdad General Norman Schwarzkopf said pretty much the same thing. That it would have created a giant power vacuum, that we would have broken Iraq and been responsible for the chaos that followed. It would have been a tar pit we would spend the next 100 years trying to exit.

You're right, we created a vacuum. Only we didn't learn from it, and did the exact same thing 15 years later. Only this time we had eliminated the Iraqi Army and ISIS swooped in to fill it.

 

[fuzz77]

Theres no conclusion possible other than to admit government action is not working.

I'm not sure where you are concluding that I am making an argument for this point?
Govt action only within itself doesn't resolve problems but it does help make progress.
Laws don't stop all occurrences of actions ruled unlawful, but they certainly reduce those occurrences.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Interesting that the minute the Soviet Union collapsed and the need for a giant military industrial complex was questionable we poked the biggest hornets nest on earth so as to continue to feed the machine.

 

[starchief5]

until the Rapture, at least

Welcome to the family, jamo. I was starting to get worried.

 

[jamo0001]

Welcome to the family, jamo. I was starting to get worried.

i can still speak the language, don't worry

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I'm not sure where you are concluding that I am making an argument for this point?
Govt action only within itself doesn't resolve problems but it does help make progress.
Laws don't stop all occurrences of actions ruled unlawful, but they certainly reduce those occurrences.

This I can agree with. But its quite a different position than you had when we began this discussion.