Bigots are not the only ones hurt by bans on discrimination.

[FIND]

What question? I was simply making an observation (if you will note, there is no question mark in my post).

Also, if you are going to make an accusation of a "loaded question" it would be polite to point out why it is a loaded question.

Lastly, we don't need spell Nazi here. It only makes you look petty when you call attention to it in such an ostentatious and snarky manner.

1: Don't start arguing semantics. The intention of the statement is clear.

2: Observation or whatever, you were attempting to twist my words (again), I will not have that. You appear to be moderately intelligent, so I would hope that you would stop using such petty methods to prove your point.

3: I don't really care if that makes me look petty. I HATE the spelling and grammar that can be found on the internet. TXTSPK and just plain undereducation bothers me. It is like nails on a chalkboard. If you are offended, then you will not do it again. I find the easiest way to teach most people anything is to embarrass or ridicule them, as most people are far too dense to accept the fact that they are neither perfect, nor do they know it all, and in light of our recent conversation, I am fairly confident that you are one of those dense people.


Now, to point out why it is loaded, as if you really didn't know already.

So your conceding that businesses should have a right to discriminate..

If I agree, then I would be agreeing (at least in your mind) to all the diarrhea that spills from your keyboard where you insist the government is trying to control your thoughts by saying you can't hang out a "whites only" sign.

If I disagree, you would insist that I am contradicting myself.

Don't pretend to be that stupid, even I am giving you far more credit than that.

 

[foxpaws]

...as most people are far to dense to accept the fact that they are neither perfect, nor do they know it all, and in light of our recent conversation, i am fairly confident that you are one of those dense people.

:lol:

 

[Aquabrit]

Too dense.

 

[Calabrio]

That one businessman wouldn't be able to get supplies -

You're being absurd.

Sorry-cycle starts again.

No, just a sorry excuse and a very sorry 'explanation' on your part.

Do you then repeal portions of that same law because you don't think it will happen again?

I don't think there's any need or political will to go back and repeal any sections of the law. I just think it's wise to recognize where the government overstepped it's boundaries, recognize the risk associated with it doing so, and promise to not do that again.

That is being ignorant of history Cal. And, as everyone knows - history will repeat itself, but only if you are ignorant of history.

I don't care if individuals are racist, stupid, or bad business people. I can chose to avoid them, I can move away from them, I can open a business and compete with them.

The government shouldn't discriminate or support such practices. The hypocrisy here is that the government DOES support such programs in the form of affirmative action.

You seem to want to take the risk that somehow we have gotten better - that creating discrimination on a private level won't escalate..

I don't seek to live in your hellish utopia.
The consequence of unregulated, unlimited, unchecked federal power to regulate our lives and our behavior is infinitely WORSE than anything a handful of individuals can do.

You keep shifting the power and authority up to the federal government to regulate us, as though they represent our better angels, the truth is the exact opposite. History demonstrates that.

Denying someone service at a store isn't tyranny.
And intimidation, violence, and intimidation are illegal REGARDLESS the person's race, gender, or religion.

There are laws that protect us from what you incorrectly keep calling "tyranny" in your obvious attempt to hijack and redefine the word. And those laws, with equal justice, are applied in a color blind way.

lets repeal the whole CRA - it obviously doesn't work.
sheesh...

No one proposed any such thing....
but far be it from me to let the truth get in the way of your bullcrap, dishonest spin.

Ah, Cal -
Once again... sheesh....

ah, fowpaws... if you have to keep correcting yourself or redefining your statement, that means you were wrong. -sheesh. But it's all about perception with you.

And once again who controls our government - us Cal....

We have less control of government the farther away from us it gets.
I have the most control over my local government. Then my state government. We have very little control over the federal government.

That's why we have a federal representative republic with powers that limited and outlined in the constitution.

And discrimination leads to tyranny, if the majority is discriminating against a minority, it is exactly what happens. It is the tyranny of discrimination...

The tyranny of discrimination?
You have to be kidding me.

Unchecked power leads to tyranny. Concentrated power leads to tyranny.
Unlimited, centralized authority into our personal lives leads to tyranny.

Not being able to get a good seat at a restaurant is NOT tyranny.

You're efforts to redefine this word for you twisted again is sick. But thanks for the heads up, I can't wait to hear about the "tyranny of racism" in the coming election.

And so, you change things -

You don't even respond to what I've written, you just respond with what you want to be heard.

The fact is, we've had tyranical abuses of federal power in this country on several occassions this past century. The worst abusers were Wilson and FDR. These federal abuses of power were every bit as "discriminatory' as anything that happened in the South.

There ability to perpetuate such gross abuse of power and manipulation of the people didn't come about because the government was TOO WEAK to prevent it. On the contrary, those in power had no regard for the constitution or the founding principles and concentrated their power. The federal government was TOO STRONG.

GOVERNMENT leads to tyranny-
Unconstitutional, unchecked centralized power leads to tyranny.

And YOU know this.
You know the history, yet you refuse to even acknowledge it during the course of this discussion because it doesn't fit your agenda. But I know that you are aware of Wilson and his propagandist Creel. You know about the German populations were scapegoated and persecuted in the name of "nationalism."

The government isn't a benevolent guardian, it's not our savior.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

And under FDR it put Japanese, Italian and German families in internment camps, seized their property, and imposed strict restrictions on the population.

FDR was a tyranny and we were very fortunate he died in office.
Wilson was also a tyrant and in many ways we were lucky he stroked out in office, restricting the amount of abuse his philosophy could do.

Neither of these men respected the constitution, Wilson had outright contempt for it.

It is getting better, not worse Cal.

We make improvements based upon improvements in technology, greater ability to communicate, to share information, and learn. Government isn't make us better, it's not improving society.

The periods of the most achievement and improvement come about when government governs least.

Old school, my god, what is he 93? How about someone more contemporary...

So, he only counts when it's convenient for you. I see. Today he's really old. I guess he doesn't speak for the party now?

Of course, he's only the President pro tempore of the United States Senate and third in line for the Presidency... but he's not relevant or "contemporary" enough for you today.

So, if your neighbor decides to create an amusement park in his backyard....

What laws have been passed that won't allow you to eat 20 cheeseburgers a day Cal - once again you are projecting... those laws don't exist. I asked you for the 'you must allow guns in your store' law - nothing right? This projecting is getting old, and is wrong.

Yes, those are hypotheticals, they represent the slippery slope, and they were presented as such.

So, you're going to argue that the invasion of government into our personal choices ends today. There won't be any more expansion.

You've argued to the contrary.
You've argued that because the government is involved in things like healthcare, you have a right to force people to change their behavior, because of the shared financial burden.

You take advantage of the fact that, in this format, it's too difficult to hold you accountable for all of the past statements you've made and how you grossly contradict yourself and your stated principles.

And as Burke said...

You quoting Burke is like me quoting Mao to defend capitalism..

So, once again do you take the risk? The risk that allowing discrimination against things that people have no control over won't change the face of neighborhoods, of cities, of states... like it did in the south.

Do you take the risk in empowering the federal government with unlimited to rob people of their liberty in order to make them behave better?? Do you take the risk of undermining the constitution and centralizing power when history has shown repeatedly this actually does lead to tyranny and a loss of liberty? And it has happened multiple times within the last century even in the United States.

The CRA didn't end racist sentiments anywhere. At best, it increased the rate that things changed, but the change was inevitable. The culture and society was already changing and it would have continued.

As stated, repeatedly,and ignored, there were components of the CRA that were absolutely just and valid. They were appropriate actions for the federal government to make in application of the 14th amendment. There were components of it that were not. And I'm critical of those that violated the rights of the individual, that violated the right of speech and freedom of association. NOT the intended outcome of the CRA and not the entirety of the bill.

I'm not worried that because we are "too free" that we'll all suddenly devolve into a bunch of racists who deny opportunity to people based on race. The CRA doesn't influence the way I think or work.

Do you act differently because of the CRA, fowpaws? Would you be a racist denying equal opportunity to people based on their race if the CRA weren't passed?

Would your friends become racists overnight because it were suddenly "legal?"

I don't think we need to take that risk for an extreme liberty.

That damn constitution and it's notion of extreme liberty.
If people like you could just get rid of it, or continue to ignore, think of all the good you could get done.

We don't have the liberty to own slaves (who were thought of as being sub human), I think that is OK.

Words have no meaning to you. You just use them however you want, to mean what you want, with no integrity or respect.... I think I'm just going to "ignore" you at this point.

That last statement is so outrageous.. it's just incredible. In both how you bastardize the language, the discussion, and your implication.

You don't appear to have a single redeeming quality.
It's rather sad.

I'm done...
There's nothing more that can be said to you... I'm speechless.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[FIND]

Too dense.

hahaha touche. yeah, I typoed.... Irony is a bitch.

 

[Aquabrit]

I know, I'm just messing around.

:Beer

 

[foxpaws]

Thank you for making my point.

Tyranny can ONLY come through the government.

Again, thank you for making my point.

Tyranny can ONLY come through the government.

The private sector cannot cause tyranny. They can try and influence government, but only the government can cause tyranny.

And where in the United States does the government come from - ah, the people Shag - tyranny starts in the United States with the people, because of how our government is constructed.

If we were a dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy, etc, it would come from the government, but we aren't. We are a democracy (once again, republic because of size - but for ease here - democracy). And where does the government get its power in a democracy-from the people. So, if we are tyrannical in the US it is because the people allowed or wanted it to happen. In the case of the south - the majority wanted to subjugate the minority... they voted in a government that would allow that.

The element of corporatism involved doesn't negate that truth but confirms truth. Corporatism is antithetical to Conservatism and Libertarianism. The Democrat party is the party of corporatism. Modern statists are the ones largely employing corporatism.

So, you agree - big business can control government. You can label whatever side you want as being in bed with big business - but finally, you admit this. So, business was in bed with state governments in the south - they helped foster segregation and discrimination.

Wrong again.

Only the government can create a system on the level of which you are talking about. Otherwise systems simply evolve naturally by keeping what works and discarding what doesn't and discrimination the likes of which you are talking about could not be a part of an evolved system because it is inefficient.

Slavery was kept around as long as it was because of political interests influencing government to protect that practice. The same holds true for institutional discrimination.

So, because we are so good we should take out the laws that prevent slavery, right? No - you keep those laws, just as you keep the laws that prevent discrimination.

And government can be controlled by business - you just talked about it previously shag. So, in government, where money talks, the biggest speakers are business. If business feels that created a 2nd class is to their best interest (and in many cases it is - cheap worker class is a really great thing for many businesses), it can work at doing that with the power behind its wealth.

If private business was left to it's own devices institutional discrimination would not have been possible.

Dream on white boy - how about breaking out a history book or two...

Pure business practices doe not "create a cycle of poverty". Capitalism is the ONLY economic system that creates wealth and is THE reason we have a much higher standard of living then even our parents did at our age. Only GOVERNMENT can create a "cycle of poverty" (often with regulation influenced by corporatism). Just look at the war on poverty and how it utterly destroyed the black family unit.

The theory of social causation you cling to has been disproven countless times throughout history and you know it.

A Free market DOES NOT HAVE A RIGID CLASS SYSTEM. Historical facts bear this out. Only through dishonest manipulation of stats can it even be made to appear that there is a rigid class structure in place.

Capitalism tempered by regulation shag - pure anarcho capitalism should destroy... you need to state that. Even your gods at von Mises don't advocate pure capitalism. Unfettered capitalism will create a class system...

The truth is that mobility between classes ONLY happens in a free market because the free market, capitalism, is the ONLY economic system that CREATES WEALTH. More regulation only reduces that mobility because it inhibits the wealth creating mechanisms of the free market.

The "majority" cannot "create" ANY system EXCEPT through government. Aristocracies are enshrined in place through government. The ONLY party doing that is the party you vote for. The ONLY ideology doing that is the one you subscribe to.

But, in a democracy you have majority and minority - that is a fact of life shag - but you place safeguards within that government that doesn't allow the majority to enslave the minority. Or you do without government entirely - and in a large society, that ain't going to work.

When people don't have the possibility of earning enough wealth to change their class status, THAT is when a rigid class system is in place. Only through GOVERNMENT ACTION can that possibility of earning wealth be diminished or destroyed. The party attacking wealth is the DEMOCRAT party. That is because they are IDEOLOGICALLY PREDISPOSED to do just that because of the very lie you are promoting; the Marxist exploitation narrative (lie) aimed at giving an historical justification for social justice.

And discrimination allows people to earn enough to change their class status? Discrimination snowballs into segregation, segregation snowballs into a second class - that is when a ridged class system is in place. By allowing government to stop discrimination-which happens just because we are people shag, it is in our genes-then people will have the possibility of earning enough wealth to change their class status.

This is nothing more then an attempt to misdirect and shift the conversation by continually injecting the marxist exploitation lie. None of what you said there, IN ANY WAY counters the point I raised. In fact, much of it confirms what I have been saying.

The thing about posmodernism is that it is built around the rejection of objective truth and reason as well as the promotion of the undermining of tradition, social norms and ultimately, the lessons of history; it is an idea ultimately built around willfull distortion and deception.

And you pick and chose and get to do the same thing. Heck, you admitted that that big business can control government with corporatism - come on shag -

Why haven't you answered the question - do you think we should repeal Title II? Do you think that private business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, gender or age?

You know - until you answer that, I don't think I need to continue on. It seems rather silly doesn't it? You need to take a stand Shag - how about it - just lay it on the line - 'white only' is fine by you. Or is it? We don't really know do we?

You certainly know my viewpoint - it isn't OK by me.

 

[shagdrum]

1: Don't start arguing semantics. The intention of the statement is clear.

Apparently the intention was not clear as you misconstrued me as asking a question.

Also, what you seem to view as semantics is actually very important to the debate. If two people have two different understandings of a word, phrase or concept they they will simply end up arguing past each other. An objective, operational definition is necessary for a reasonable debate.

Issues of ideas like "equality" and "social justice" have shown to be great examples of that problem in the past.

2: Observation or whatever, you were attempting to twist my words (again), I will not have that.[/QUOTE]

I am not "twisting your words". If that was the case you could show that I was somehow taking them out of context, equivocating or employing some other means; you could show how I was taking them out of context.

I am simply going by what you said. If I am misconstruing then clarification on your part is obviously called for.

However, you have agreed in another thread that under certain circumstances you would discriminate based on certain factors that in some contexts most would consider intolerant to do so.

In fact, as has been pointed out, discrimination ultimately means nothing more then choice. Everyone discriminates; it is human nature. So the question is simply in what context is it appropriate to discriminate based on certain factors, if at all.

I find the easiest way to teach most people anything is to embarrass or ridicule them

...by engendering a hostility in them that predisposes them to want you to be wrong?!

You might want to read Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People . One very good point it raises is that you cannot convenience someone of anything. All you can do is help them convince themselves (I am paraphrasing).

I am fairly confident that you are one of those dense people.

After being here for a little over a week and posting only 35 times?

It is clear that you have not done any research on this forum. For instance, you have demanded proof to points that has already been offered numerous times on this forum. To demand that to be rehashed simply because you refuse to use the search function is the height of presumption.

There is a lot of history on this forum, both in what is discussed and why they are discussed the way they are. It is insulting to everyone who frequents this part of the forum for you to start engaging others here and not familiarize yourself with that history.

If I agree, then I would be agreeing (at least in your mind) to all the diarrhea that spills from your keyboard where you insist the government is trying to control your thoughts by saying you can't hang out a "whites only" sign.

That is a MASSIVE misrepresentation based on absurd assumptions and huge logical leaps.

First, as I have pointed out, I wasn't asking a question.

Second, agreeing with that point doesn't mean that you agree with anything and everything I say, even on this issue alone. It is simply common ground from which to discuss things.

For a question to be loaded it HAS to assume something that is not inherently accepted by both parties. If you construe my statement as a question, then the "question" doesn't assume anything. It is simply asking weather or not that observation is true.

This is not simply semantics either. The question is either loaded or not. If you are accusing me of asking a loaded question when you know it is not loaded, then you are dodging and not discussing things in good faith. Instead you are smearing and engaging in specious ad hominem attacks. I would hope you would avoid that because it is childish and only drags down the debate; the actions of a troll.

So again, if I am asking a "loaded question" how in fact is it truly "loaded"?

 

[shagdrum]

And where in the United States does the government come from - ah, the people Shag - tyranny starts in the United States with the people, because of how our government is constructed.

Do you not realize you are making my point? Again from post #15

If people are inherently corrupt, racist, etc. then any government institution established and/or run by those people will be corrupt, racist, etc. If the problem is character flaws in people then it is utterly foolish to look to government to fix that problem and change people. Those same issues will simply arise but with the power and implied threat of force of the government behind it. Much better to dilute that evil by not giving it the power of the government.​

Whatever evil people may have will become institutionalized in the government they create. That is why the Framers created the system of checks and balances and why they made a nation ruled by the rule of law, not of man.

You and I agree on the problem; that evil inherently stems from the people. However, your "solution" is based on the exact opposite assumption; that people are inherently good and any evil comes (mostly or totally) from outside factors; social institutions and what not.

Your entire argument contradicts itself. If you actually understood political philosophy you would understand that.

Your entire argument is not coherent because of the point you are raising; that the evil of racism is inherent in the people. To want to centralize that evil and give it the backing of the government is the height of foolishness under that assumption.

Also, that "solution" inherently breaks down the safeguards put in place to specifically avoid the tyranny of the majority, something you aknowledged when you said this:

in a democracy you have majority and minority - that is a fact of life shag - but you place safeguards within that government that doesn't allow the majority to enslave the minority​

You praise those safeguards in one breath but in the next breath support a "solution" that circumvents those safeguards. Again, you are contradicting yourself.

Do you not realize that each time you point out that the government comes from the people, you are making my point and sticking your foot in your mouth?

Oh, and history does back my assertion up concerning institutional discrimination, government and the free market. How come slavery didn't simply die out here as it did in numerous other countries? Slavery was enshrined in place in this country though a number of laws, rules and other acts of the government.

FYI: I NEVER said or implied that big business can CONTROL government through corporatism. I specifically used the word "influence". There is a huge difference and you know it. You are intentionally misrepresenting what I said. Again.

In fact, under corporatism, the government ultimately controls business, not the other way around. Businesses can influence government around the margins (especially in the short term), and under corporatism government needs businesses to some extend, but ultimate control rests with the government. Just look at Nazi Germany, Facist Italy or even GMC and Chrysler today.

There are other ways you are intentionally misrepresenting me in that post as well, including assuming I am talking about unfettered capitalism when you know I am not (a rhetorical trick to misrepresent and ostracize). I am talking about capitalism in the same sense Adam Smith talked about it and you know that.

If you were to discuss things in good faith I would take the time to respond to each of your points and questions. But sense you are not and never have discussed things in good faith on this forum (and everyone knows it) I will continue to treat your posts as what they are; hostile attempts to muddy the waters and spread disinformation.

 

[shagdrum]

And as Burke said...

The extreme of liberty (which is its abstract perfection, but its real fault) obtains nowhere, nor ought to obtain anywhere; because extremes, as we all know, in every point which relates either to our duties or satisfactions in life, are destructive both to virtue and enjoyment.

We limit our liberty - because if we don't we have anarchy. You weigh the results of limiting a liberty, and the results of allowing the extreme of that liberty...

You have absolutely no clue what Burke meant by that.

 

[foxpaws]

Do you not realize you are making my point? Again from post #15

If people are inherently corrupt, racist, etc. then any government institution established and/or run by those people will be corrupt, racist, etc.

and much more...​

Why haven't you answered the question - do you think we should repeal Title II? Do you think that private business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, gender or age?​

 

[shagdrum]

Why haven't you answered the question - do you think we should repeal Title II? Do you think that private business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, gender or age?

As I said in post #34 (and you intentionally ignored):

If you were to discuss things in good faith I would take the time to respond to each of your points and questions. But since you are not and never have discussed things in good faith on this forum (and everyone knows it) I will continue to treat your posts as what they are; hostile attempts to muddy the waters and spread disinformation. ​

 

[foxpaws]

I don't think there's any need or political will to go back and repeal any sections of the law. I just think it's wise to recognize where the government overstepped it's boundaries, recognize the risk associated with it doing so, and promise to not do that again.

I don't care if individuals are racist, stupid, or bad business people. I can chose to avoid them, I can move away from them, I can open a business and compete with them.

The government shouldn't discriminate or support such practices. The hypocrisy here is that the government DOES support such programs in the form of affirmative action.

Cal - you just spent thousands of words basically saying how awful Title II is and that it infringes on our right of personal property... But now, oh, well - just promise not to do it again...

Crap Cal - either it should go or it should stay-it isn't a 'well, I guess we should live with it now' sort of thing. Or is it? Are you really that lukewarm about this? It didn't seem that way earlier. I am not - it stays. Period.

Just as I don't agree with affirmative action - it isn't a 'well, we have it, so I guess I should learn to live with it'. Nope - it is bad. It is also a form of discrimination. I hold to my guns Cal - discrimination, and reverse discrimination are both bad. Period.

I don't seek to live in your hellish utopia.
The consequence of unregulated, unlimited, unchecked federal power to regulate our lives and our behavior is infinitely WORSE than anything a handful of individuals can do.

You keep shifting the power and authority up to the federal government to regulate us, as though they represent our better angels, the truth is the exact opposite. History demonstrates that.

And once again - government is us. At all levels. And of course federal government aren't angels - they have lots of devils... But, over time, the devils are out. It happens time and time again. I believe in the system that Jefferson, Adams, Madison started. They too knew that the devils would rise, but they created a system where the devils could be ousted. And they are, with great regularity.

Denying someone service at a store isn't tyranny.
And intimidation, violence, and intimidation are illegal REGARDLESS the person's race, gender, or religion.

There are laws that protect us from what you incorrectly keep calling "tyranny" in your obvious attempt to hijack and redefine the word. And those laws, with equal justice, are applied in a color blind way.

Thanks to the federal government Cal. And denying someone service at the store isn't tyranny-however, it can be the start of tyranny. It has been the start of tyranny in the past, and I am not willing to bet that it wouldn't be the start of tyranny in the future.

We have less control of government the farther away from us it gets.
I have the most control over my local government. Then my state government. We have very little control over the federal government.

That's why we have a federal representative republic with powers that limited and outlined in the constitution.

You do have the most control at the local level, but to say you don't at a federal level isn't true, unless you make it that way. I had a lot of say in federal government, because I worked at it. Democracy doesn't come to those who sit in their living rooms and vote every 4 years. You want democracy, you want your voice heard - you work at it. Democracy is hard work.

Unchecked power leads to tyranny. Concentrated power leads to tyranny.
Unlimited, centralized authority into our personal lives leads to tyranny.

Not being able to get a good seat at a restaurant is NOT tyranny.

You're efforts to redefine this word for you twisted again is sick. But thanks for the heads up, I can't wait to hear about the "tyranny of racism" in the coming election.

Gosh - you must really think I have pull Cal - And a government that allows private industry to discriminate is allowing tyranny - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power - it is an arbitrary exercise of power.

The fact is, we've had tyranical abuses of federal power in this country on several occassions this past century. The worst abusers were Wilson and FDR. These federal abuses of power were every bit as "discriminatory' as anything that happened in the South.

There ability to perpetuate such gross abuse of power and manipulation of the people didn't come about because the government was TOO WEAK to prevent it. On the contrary, those in power had no regard for the constitution or the founding principles and concentrated their power. The federal government was TOO STRONG.

GOVERNMENT leads to tyranny-

Unconstitutional, unchecked centralized power leads to tyranny.

And YOU know this.

You know the history, yet you refuse to even acknowledge it during the course of this discussion because it doesn't fit your agenda. But I know that you are aware of Wilson and his propagandist Creel. You know about the German populations were scapegoated and persecuted in the name of "nationalism."

The government isn't a benevolent guardian, it's not our savior.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

And under FDR it put Japanese, Italian and German families in internment camps, seized their property, and imposed strict restrictions on the population.

FDR was a tyranny and we were very fortunate he died in office.
Wilson was also a tyrant and in many ways we were lucky he stroked out in office, restricting the amount of abuse his philosophy could do.

Neither of these men respected the constitution, Wilson had outright contempt for it.

And Wilson and FDR had many things I don't like about them, mostly Wilson, but certainly FDR did as well. Just because I might have thought that SS was needed, however flawed, doesn't mean I embrace interment of the Japanese.

The right needs to let go of this notion that if you like part of something you must embrace the whole... You need to let go of that Cal. Just because you like oh, Eisenhower (I don't know who to use here) - I don't expect you to think that everything he did was just great. That is silly.

Just as Rand Paul certainly doesn't embrace all of libertarianism, I don't embrace everything that every Democrat has ever stood for...

But, what I do truly believe is that our government is built on sound principles, and that the founding fathers knew that a democracy, set with checks and balances would prevail over bad leaders, bad congresses, and bad courts.

Eventually the courts held FDR in check and congress held Wilson down. It also managed to oust Nixon. The system worked. We are not in a dictatorship, we are not in an oligarchy, we are still in a democracy.

We make improvements based upon improvements in technology, greater ability to communicate, to share information, and learn. Government isn't make us better, it's not improving society.

The periods of the most achievement and improvement come about when government governs least.

Ford started when Teddy (a progressive) was in office... FDR gave us the bomb... Edison was in Menlo Park during a huge expansion of government directly after the civil war. NASA did its best work in the 60s - when the great society was really taking hold.

There are also examples on the other side - during Reagan - I am sure some great thing in the private sector happened during Reagan - other than my car was designed in the 80s

This is subjective Cal, you might want to steer away from this.

So, he only counts when it's convenient for you. I see. Today he's really old. I guess he doesn't speak for the party now?

Of course, he's only the President pro tempore of the United States Senate and third in line for the Presidency... but he's not relevant or "contemporary" enough for you today.

I don't think I have ever mentioned Byrd-I think he is old, and on a personal note - disgusting, and guess what - he doesn't speak for me. Just because he is a democrat doesn't mean I fall in with his ideas - get over that little roadblock you have Cal. Let me see - I could pull up a really terrible republican and then tar you with his ideals, but that wouldn't be right. You might be a republican, but it wouldn't mean that you rank and file with any of them.

I don't speak for the democratic party and they don't speak for me.
Got it?

Yes, those are hypotheticals, they represent the slippery slope, and they were presented as such.

So, you're going to argue that the invasion of government into our personal choices ends today. There won't be any more expansion.

Who knows-I can't see into the future. I would say with what has happened in the past the democrats will most likely expand government. However, according to the last Republican president I would say that if the Republicans got into power they too would expand the government. It seems to be on both sides.

You've argued to the contrary.
You've argued that because the government is involved in things like healthcare, you have a right to force people to change their behavior, because of the shared financial burden.

No, I said that they should accept the consequences of their behavior and pay for it. If you are eating 5 cheeseburgers a day, smoking 2 packs of cigarettes, and you end up in the emergency room on my dime - I want some of my dime back. I don't think the government has any say in how much salt you eat, how much fat you intake, how many cigarettes you smoke. But I do think you should be held accountable for your choices. I think high cigarette taxes are great - you pay for your choice, and for the consequences down the line for your choice, you pay for your emergency room care up front.

You quoting Burke is like me quoting Mao to defend capitalism..

I quote Burke because shag is so fond of him... smile...

The CRA didn't end racist sentiments anywhere. At best, it increased the rate that things changed, but the change was inevitable. The culture and society was already changing and it would have continued.

So, the blacks were going to be just fine without the CRA - obviously they didn't think so Cal. It can't end how we feel, no government regulation can dictate our feelings. The government can say however, that discrimination is wrong, and only the federal government has the power to enforce the fact that we shouldn't discriminate. If left to our own devices, who knows, probably 90% of the people wouldn't actively discriminate. Maybe, I don't know for certain. However, I do know that now, there is 0% institutionalized discrimination in the public sector, and there are only pockets of discrimination in the private sector - like clubs, some schools...

As stated, repeatedly,and ignored, there were components of the CRA that were absolutely just and valid. They were appropriate actions for the federal government to make in application of the 14th amendment. There were components of it that were not. And I'm critical of those that violated the rights of the individual, that violated the right of speech and freedom of association. NOT the intended outcome of the CRA and not the entirety of the bill.

I'm not worried that because we are "too free" that we'll all suddenly devolve into a bunch of racists who deny opportunity to people based on race. The CRA doesn't influence the way I think or work.

Do you act differently because of the CRA, fowpaws? Would you be a racist denying equal opportunity to people based on their race if the CRA weren't passed?

Would your friends become racists overnight because it were suddenly "legal?"

I don't think I would act any differently, I don't know you that well Cal - but if you say you wouldn't act any differently, then I believe you. However I do know people that would be more than happy to see a return to segregation, and heck - even Foss stated that he would like to see us return to the days before the 19th amendment, he claimed that our current 'nanny' government was the fault of women getting the vote.

It is out there Cal, it runs like sewage beneath the surface of 'color blind, gender blind, creed blind'. All you had to do was to watch how people wanted to paint Obama with a muslim brush to find out how we certainly aren't 'creed blind'. That crazy woman who was at one of McCain's campaign stops, where she went off on some tangent about 'I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist'... It is there Cal, we can't change how those people think, you know that and I know that, but we can create a country where their thoughts don't become policy.

That damn constitution and it's notion of extreme liberty.
If people like you could just get rid of it, or continue to ignore, think of all the good you could get done.

The constitution isn't about extreme liberty - if it were we would be in a anarchy-that is what extreme liberty is. Maybe you should check that out Cal. The constitution protects the liberty of all, including those least likely to be able to protect themselves.

You don't appear to have a single redeeming quality.
It's rather sad.

However I do not just go 'oh well - just don't do it again' like you did at the beginning of your latest post Cal. Do you think that if the Federal government went into the south and said 'you know, separate but equal, segregation and discrimination are all wrong - so don't do it again' that we would be just fine right now? There would have been a race war Cal.

I actually do respect you Cal-well, most of the time. Until I read the first paragraph here - how could you say that after everything you stated before?

 

[shagdrum]

The constitution isn't about extreme liberty...

Yet you misrepresent it as such when people support adherence to the Constitution. Just like when someone extols the virtues of capitalism you misrepresent them as supporting anarcho-capitalism even though you know better and they know you know better.

As Cal said, you have no redeeming qualities. You are a liar through and through. That is why I have absolutely nothing to do with you outside of this forum and only bother with your posts long enough to point out how you are lying and what direction you are lying in.

 

[foxpaws]

As I said in post #34 (and you intentionally ignored):

If you were to discuss things in good faith I would take the time to respond to each of your points and questions. But since you are not and never have discussed things in good faith on this forum (and everyone knows it) I will continue to treat your posts as what they are; hostile attempts to muddy the waters and spread disinformation. ​

Nope, read the whole thing - but, until you make a stand Shag - it is silly to discuss this with you. Cal made a stand at one point - he very clearly said that discrimination should be allowed in private business, that 'white only' was just fine by him.

Why haven't you answered the question - do you think we should repeal Title II? Do you think that private business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, gender or age?

Why can't you take a stand? I realize that as a 'lawyer in training' you think that this might be a good defensive stand, the 'lack of stand' - but here, it isn't shag. It just ends up with you looking at best, indecisive, and at worst, hiding.

 

[foxpaws]

Yet you misrepresent it as such when people support adherence to the Constitution. Just like when someone extols the virtues of capitalism you misrepresent them as supporting anarcho-capitalism even though you know better and they know you know better.

As Cal said, you have no redeeming qualities. You are a liar through and through. That is why I have absolutely nothing to do with you outside of this forum and only bother with your posts long enough to point out how you are lying and what direction you are lying in.

Ah, once again, resort to personal attacks when you can't debate on the merits of your stands... easy enough.

Once again, I don't have to personally attack you Shag-heck, you can't even voice a stand on this issue -

I believe that speaks loudly enough, a personal smear wouldn't be nearly as effective as your impotence.

 

[FIND]

Shag, is that all you do on here? Use a massive amount of verbosity to confuse or misdirect every time you act like a douche to try and pretend that you were being misrepresented or misunderstood? Your posts really are more transparent than that, it would take a real idiot to buy into the crap responses you post.

Dumb kid. Try growing up some. Maybe in 10 years or so, you might have the wisdom to back up your ability to type.

I demanded proof of something? When? You really are going to twist things any way you can so that other people will think you are right or you know what you are talking about. Are you really that insecure? Jeez, to go so far out of your way to seek approval from the internet.... You really are a failure.

By the way, loved the old standby retort of "YER A NEWB SO U DONT KNOW ANYTHING" Winning comment.

Ah, it seems I will just have to avoid discussion with you until you grow up and can sit at the big boys table.

Enjoy your temper tantrum.

 

[lincolnx2]

I see where Shag and Cal are coming from, but we were giving that freedom before, and what did we do with it? This reminds me of an old saying "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I am afraid to see what will happen if this right is taken away.

 

[FIND]

just so that you won't try insisting again that I am running away from TEH MASSIVE POWAH OF YER E-PENIS, but I will keep my responses short, since you do not deserve that much of my time anyways. I had attempted to address you as an equal before, but I see that that was hopelessly overestimating you, so instead of continue the bickering you continually try and start, I will just address you as a child.

Apparently the intention was not clear as you misconstrued me as asking a question.

No, man up to what you say. I would respect that far more than you trying to pretend you are ALWAYS misunderstood.

I am not "twisting your words". If that was the case you could show that I was somehow taking them out of context, equivocating or employing some other means; you could show how I was taking them out of context.

I did.

I am simply going by what you said. If I am misconstruing then clarification on your part is obviously called for.

No. You were taking things FAR out of the context of my post. Especially considering that my post was about the difference between discrimination, and keeping your livelihood safe.

However, you have agreed in another thread that under certain circumstances you would discriminate based on certain factors that in some contexts most would consider intolerant to do so.

No I didn't. Work on your reading comprehension.

In fact, as has been pointed out, discrimination ultimately means nothing more then choice. Everyone discriminates; it is human nature. So the question is simply in what context is it appropriate to discriminate based on certain factors, if at all.

No, once again, my earlier post was that there was a difference.

...by engendering a hostility in them that predisposes them to want you to be wrong?!

All I hear is WAAAH IM SMARE, AND NOW I IS SAD.

You might want to read Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People . One very good point it raises is that you cannot convenience someone of anything. All you can do is help them convince themselves (I am paraphrasing).

So? Are you saying that no matter what I do, you are going to continue to think you know everything now that you are a big boy and graduated college? OOOH, you have a BA. WOW, who doesn't?

After being here for a little over a week and posting only 35 times?

Really? Is that the best you've got?

It is clear that you have not done any research on this forum. For instance, you have demanded proof to points that has already been offered numerous times on this forum. To demand that to be rehashed simply because you refuse to use the search function is the height of presumption.

Not so much. Just because I don't buy your asinine logic does not mean I don't know what retarded nonsense you have posted before.

There is a lot of history on this forum, both in what is discussed and why they are discussed the way they are. It is insulting to everyone who frequents this part of the forum for you to start engaging others here and not familiarize yourself with that history.

Another, you're a noob so stay out line? Wow.

That is a MASSIVE misrepresentation based on absurd assumptions and huge logical leaps.

No it isn't. I can quote you verbatim saying that is an attempt at thought control.

First, as I have pointed out, I wasn't asking a question.

Lalala, don't really care. You made a statement in an attempt to misrepresent me hoping that I would either agree or disagree with it so you could twist my response.

Second, agreeing with that point doesn't mean that you agree with anything and everything I say, even on this issue alone. It is simply common ground from which to discuss things.

Yeah, you know better than that. You just want an I WON moment.

For a question to be loaded it HAS to assume something that is not inherently accepted by both parties. If you construe my statement as a question, then the "question" doesn't assume anything. It is simply asking weather or not that observation is true.

Do you even know what a loaded question is? You seem to like wikipedia, why not start there?

This is not simply semantics either. The question is either loaded or not. If you are accusing me of asking a loaded question when you know it is not loaded, then you are dodging and not discussing things in good faith. Instead you are smearing and engaging in specious ad hominem attacks. I would hope you would avoid that because it is childish and only drags down the debate; the actions of a troll.

Not so much. Try again.

So again, if I am asking a "loaded question" how in fact is it truly "loaded"?

Told you in the last post. Not going to repeat myself for a child.

 

[FIND]

I see where Shag and Cal are coming from, but we were giving that freedom before, and what did we do with it? This reminds me of an old saying "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I am afraid to see what will happen if this right is taken away.

Yes, definitely, I can understand their position. Willingly giving up freedoms is a scary thing. But, I see no sense in worrying about giving up the right to do something that they say they wouldn't and shouldn't do anyways, especially since doing those types of things only hurt others.

But honestly.... You see rat poison, you know you shouldn't eat it right? So, how would you be hurt by someone telling you not to eat it?

We do have to be vigilant enough to guarantee we never lose these freedoms we have or cherish. But, taking it too far is silly as well. The extremes are where the problems of this world are created. Anarchy, Facism, Totalitarianism, just to name a few, are just examples of taking things too far to the extreme.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, is that all you do on here? Use a massive amount of verbosity to confuse or misdirect every time you act like a douche to try and pretend that you were being misrepresented or misunderstood?

No reason do pretend. I did NOT ask ANY question yet you state that I did. It is pretty obvious that you were, for whatever reason, misconstruing what I said.

Dumb kid. Try growing up some. Maybe in 10 years or so, you might have the wisdom to back up your ability to type.

Is that really all you know? To insult and attempt to bully people into agreement with you?

I demanded proof of something? When?

If you wish to say something is unconstitutional, then do so with specific proof.

You really are going to twist things any way you can so that other people will think you are right or you know what you are talking about.

Again, show where I am twisting something and how. Simply making false assertions rooted in distortion doesn't do it.

Are you really that insecure? Jeez, to go so far out of your way to seek approval from the internet.... You really are a failure.

Back to the ad hominem attacks I see.

Enjoy your temper tantrum.

Your the one mocking me, calling me a "dumb kid", making gross lies and distortions and yet I am the one throwing a temper tantrum?

No, man up to what you say. I would respect that far more than you trying to pretend you are ALWAYS misunderstood.

How about you stop LYING on this forum. You are now INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting what I say and projecting your own intellectual immaturity onto me.

You were taking things FAR out of the context of my post. Especially considering that my post was about the difference between discrimination, and keeping your livelihood safe.

I did no such thing and you know it. You have YET to show that I was in any way taking things out of context. All you have given is assertions, hyperbole and speculation. That does not constitute proof.

No I didn't. Work on your reading comprehension.

In response to the following question:

...would you discriminate in choosing a future wife and mother of your children? Would things that are out of their control (mental and/or physical handicaps, genetic disorders, race, etc.) have any effect on your decision? Go one set further, would you be discriminating in your preference for your daughter's future husband and the father of your future grandchildren?​

That being said, I would like to say a physical handicap would not be an impediment for me to get to know someone on a personal level, however I will admit a mental handicap would be a significant barrier for me. Genetic disorders I would have to address on a case by case basis, but I doubt they would have too much impact on me, and looks I will admit to being quite shallow in some respects to, as sexual relations are important, therefore attraction is important. Race is not important to me at all, as I have often dated outside my skin color, and I can confidently say that the color of a persons skin has never caused me to feel any particular way about a person whom I am dating. Granted, I have been married twice now and have 3 children and a vasectomy, but I will ask you to take me on my word that I am answering as if that were not the case.

Keep in mind the definition of discriminate:

transitive verb

1. a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>
2. : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object

intransitive verb

1. a : to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b : to use good judgment
2. : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

No, once again, my earlier post was that there was a difference.

???

How is that a relevant response to the quote of mine you were responding to?

All I hear is WAAAH IM SMARE, AND NOW I IS SAD.

Again, were you even grasping the point I was raising that you were responding to?

No it isn't. I can quote you verbatim saying that is an attempt at thought control.

???

If you think you can make a coherent point out of what I was saying, be my guest. Put up or shut up.

Lalala, don't really care.

Well it's pretty clear the truth is irrelevant to you right now. It's become a pissing contest, apparently...

Do you even know what a loaded question is? You seem to like wikipedia, why not start there?

Loaded question is an informal fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that:

1. presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved (a complex question) and
2. contains controversial assertions and/or loaded language.

...The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious​

So, assuming I was asking a question, what presupposition is inherent in the question? It is a necessary condition of a loaded question and you have not yet logically shown any presupposition in my "question". All you have offer are assertions, speculation and hyperbole.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, definitely, I can understand their position. Willingly giving up freedoms is a scary thing. But, I see no sense in worrying about giving up the right to do something that they say they wouldn't and shouldn't do anyways, especially since doing those types of things only hurt others.

Government overreach in the name of a good cause is still government overreach. You don't circumvent the Rule Of Law for some vague utopian ideal of the "greater good". That is precisely how Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy came about.

We do have to be vigilant enough to guarantee we never lose these freedoms we have or cherish. But, taking it too far is silly as well. The extremes are where the problems of this world are created. Anarchy, Facism, Totalitarianism, just to name a few, are just examples of taking things too far to the extreme.

What's funny is that you are too ignorant of political philosophy to realize that your characterization is bass ackwards. The view you are espousing inherently abstracts itself from reality in the name of some false and unrealizable utopian ideal.

 

[FIND]

Would you just stop you whiney little child? I am through with arguing with you. Especially your arguments based upon out of context quotations and a thorough misunderstanding of the distinctions between most of the crap you quote out of wikipedia. I suggest you go back to whatever clown college gave you your bachelors degree, and ask for a refund.

Really, I am done with you, and I am done with your ignorant responses. You seek to presume far too much, and you are a know it all kid. There is really no sense in debating with someone on your level, as you will obviously NEVER reach the level of enlightenment required to actually learn what you are talking about.

No amount of searching on this forum will reveal an answer to how you believe that matter is unconstitutional. Just your insistence that it is, and then you boldly declaring that anyone who doesn't believe that it is, doesn't know anything about the constitution. But then again, with your BA in Political Sciences, you definitely know it all right? You certainly know more than a JD or those idiotic supreme court justices, right?

Christ. Go get laid or something. Come back when you are a man have the wisdom to back up your ability to type these long trite responses.

I will say something. Back when I was your age, I thought I was pretty damn smart too. One thing I have learned with age and experience is that some day, years from now, you will look back at what you said, and wonder how you were ever that dumb. Honestly. The truest sign of immaturity is a failure to recognize that you DON'T actually know everything you think you know. Once again, I may continue debate with you some day in the future, if you ever actually know what you are talking about. The only reason I haven't put you on my ignore list is because I am actually enjoying watching your deranged rantings and you spouting off this drivel. It makes me feel better about how dumb I was when I was a kid too.


As far as this goes:

Government overreach in the name of a good cause is still government overreach. You don't circumvent the Rule Of Law for some vague utopian ideal of the "greater good". That is precisely how Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy came about.

What's funny is that you are too ignorant of political philosophy to realize that your characterization is bass ackwards. The view you are espousing inherently abstracts itself from reality in the name of some false and unrealizable utopian ideal.

Yeah yeah yeah. Hitler also liked to paint and he believed in highway systems and civic planning. Does that mean that anyone who paints, drives on highways, or builds according to building codes is going to revive the axis of evil?

There wasn't a single thing in this response that was correct. You continue to use non-sequitur and a belief that your underdeveloped view of reality is the only correct view. It is pathetic and stupid. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, do not respond to my posts. If you wish to rant uncontrollably, I suggest finding someone who cares about you, instead of venting your frustrations with reality by making obnoxious posts on the internet.


Read this please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

The fact that you go to the Nazi thing every single time someone says anything different than what you believe in not only shows your profound lack of knowledge of history and of the politics of Nazi Germany, but it really takes away the meaning and impact of such a statement.

Here is another for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

 

[Calabrio]

I see where Shag and Cal are coming from, but we were giving that freedom before, and what did we do with it? This reminds me of an old saying "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I am afraid to see what will happen if this right is taken away.

You'll have to elaborate, what did we do with it? What is "it?"

It's important to realize that it was progressive Democrats using the power of the federal government like Woodrow Wilson who segregated the military. link

It was progressives using the power of the federal government who used the massive power of the federal government and propaganda to discriminate and persecute people of different heritages. And to justify physical assaults and violence perpetuated against those groups of people. link

It was the progressive using the power of the federal government who embrace eugenics and supported abortions to reduce minority populations. link

And it was progressives using the power of the federal government who used the power of the federal government to throw people who spoke against government policy into internment camps. link

**I assembled the links very quickly, they are not the "best" sources, just the first items of support I found with a quick google search**

Sometimes it seems as though the easiest way to affect positive social change is to do it through the federal government and disregard the constitutional limits of the government, or bastardize the language and twist the meanings to justify your action, but that's the wrong way to do it.

Our founders established limits on the government to PROTECT the rights of the citizens. The constitution clearly limits the power of the federal government and it's role in our lives. We can't abandon these principles, or these rules, because the 'ends' being pursued seem to be good. If that happens, then there are NO rules, there are no LIMITATIONS upon the government.

Title II sounds like a perfectly benign and compassionate measure to pass:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

But do you understand how it's justified?

Foxpaws pointing this out earlier, BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. The 20th century excuse for the federal government, due to the activist judges during FDR's administration, to damn well whatever it wants to. The commerce clause says that the congress has the power to regulate commerce "with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

So, your little sandwich shop, your little hardware store, can be regulated by the Congress because Progressive bastardized the constitution. They were too constrained by the original intent of the constitutional clause, so they redefined it.

No one wants to see people denied service or opportunity because of some racial prejudice or hatred. But empowering the federal government with unlimited power doesn't make use safer. It doesn't even protect us from racism or prejudice. Government's routinely engage in scapegoating groups of people for political expediency, be it the Jews in Germans, or the Germans in the U.S. during WWI.

Racists are ugly people. But there are constitutional laws that make physical violence, harassment, assault, intimidation illegal. And a handful of racists who are legally limited to being rude and telling me to get off their property worries me much less than a government that has the power to dictate and control every aspect of my life at gun point. Or can fire up the passions of a mob to engage in permitted violence.

And in the end, the CRA didn't end racism, it just empowered more federal government. To quote Ron Paul in a statement he made on the House Floor on the 40th anniversary of the civil rights act of 1964:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

​

 

[shagdrum]

Would you just stop you whiney little child?

...I suggest you go back to whatever clown college gave you your bachelors degree, and ask for a refund.

...Really, I am done with you, and I am done with your ignorant responses. You seek to presume far too much, and you are a know it all kid. There is really no sense in debating with someone on your level, as you will obviously NEVER reach the level of enlightenment required to actually learn what you are talking about.

Condescension; the last refuge of the petulant and the ignorant.

Politics is often called "war without bullets" for a reason. Maybe you should grow a thicker skin if you are going to come into a political forum.

No amount of searching on this forum will reveal an answer to how you believe that matter is unconstitutional.

You obviously haven't even tried. In that previous thread the Constitutional justification of the section of the law in question was given and was discussed; the interstate commerce clause. In addition to talking about it in that thread, I have discussed it the idea of interstate commerce and the gross distortion of that clause. Not to hard to do, but apparently to much to expect from you.

Just your insistence that it is, and then you boldly declaring that anyone who doesn't believe that it is, doesn't know anything about the constitution. But then again, with your BA in Political Sciences, you definitely know it all right? You certainly know more than a JD or those idiotic supreme court justices, right?

Almost any first year law student and anyone with a law degree will tell you that the interstate commerce clause has grown well beyond the scope it was originally given and intended. That is the root of the entire point I have been making.

Honestly. The truest sign of immaturity is a failure to recognize that you DON'T actually know everything you think you know.

Then maybe you should grow up and take a look in the mirror.

I have never, NEVER said (or implied) that I know everything. I am rather knowledgeable on certain thing; politics (and specifically political philosophy) being one of them. If you can demonstrate that you possess knowledge that I can learn from, I will gladly take you up on that opportunity. However, if you have to intentionally misconstrue and LIE about what I say, engage in petty ad hominem smears, fallacious excuses and generally make an @$$ out of yourself then you are not someone to learn anything from. It is hard to learn from a child, especially in the area of politics.

I used to supervise juvenile delinquents and their thought process was about the same level you are displaying here; cheap, petty, self-absorbed excuses to justify whatever they want to think or do.

Yeah yeah yeah. Hitler also liked to paint and he believed in highway systems and civic planning. Does that mean that anyone who paints, drives on highways, or builds according to building codes is going to revive the axis of evil?

So Hitler's justification for his policies, the logic for his agenda is somehow irrelevant and should not be mentioned, let alone learned from in order to avoid making the same mistakes?!

Oh wait, you are simply making another cheap excuse to simply dismiss a point that you are unwilling to even consider.

There wasn't a single thing in this response that was correct.

Based on what? The mere assertion of someone who clearly doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, can not give any specifics as to what was wrong (and why it was wrong) and is clearly overzealous to dismiss the person he is responding to? That hardly constitutes proof.

You continue to use non-sequitur

Yet you can't logically show a single one. All we get are accusations and the occasional misapplication of certain specific fallacies.

The fact that you go to the Nazi thing every single time someone says anything different than what you believe in not only shows your profound lack of knowledge of history and of the politics of Nazi Germany, but it really takes away the meaning and impact of such a statement.

Here is another for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Despite your lies, I have been very careful to avoid the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument and only bring up National Socialism in specific contexts. However the particulars of what is and is not a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument probably do not concern you; weather the connection being drawn is incidental or substantive is apparently irrelevant.

The platform of the National Socialist (Nazi) party is rooted in, guess what, SOCIALISM (with a nationalist sentiment attached to it). Since that same fundamental logic is being applied today in a myriad of areas, it is VERY relevant to point out historical examples and how they played out; including Nazi Germany.

However, you would actually have to have some basic understanding of the political philosophy involved to know that and you have clearly shown a complete and utter ignorance of political philosophy (misunderstanding the concepts of the rule of law and social justice being two great examples).

In citing those two links you are, by inference, suggesting that mentioning Nazi Germany is somehow verboten in any and all debate. When the debate concerns the application of the core philosophical assumptions and principles inherent in both Nazi Germany and in policy today, viewing the topic of Nazi Germany as "forbidden" is patently absurd and you would be a fool to even suggest that.

The fact that you don't see the connection I am drawing shows that it is, in no uncertain terms, YOU who is in fact ignorant of German politics specifically around the time of WWII.

You really know nothing of political philosophy or the lineage of social justice and Marxism (or the logical consequences of either). It is really quite entertaining to watch you, in your childish ignorance, continue to unknowingly stick your foot in your mouth.