I'm glad Rand Paul said it...

[Borat]

What I am gathering from you now is you are more than content to return to these days:

that didn't go far ENOUGH

as soon as slavery ended they should have been packed onto the same ships they've been brought in and sent back to Africa

i know with 100% certainty why it wasn't done - nobody wanted to pay for it.

YOU STUPID CHEAP FUCKING BITCHES ! ! !

now we're fucked ...

 

[drsmith1072]

I don't have to be considerate of other people around me and I suppose that the waffling smoky air does trample on other people's rights but what about the barowners rights? Doesn't he have the right to decide if he wants to allow smoking or not? His decision over how his business operates nullifies any partron's rights and if other people feel that their 'rights' will be trampled on then they are free to go to another bar.

Nice flip flop but based on YOUR own spin as you try to claim that others are trampling on your right to smoke (not sure where that is in the constitution) because they don't want to breath in your toxic chemicals then yes you do have to be considerate of other people around you because you expect them to be considerate of you and your unhealthy habits that affect those around you.

Then you change your focus away from the smoker and try to spin your bar owner argument. Why can't you even stay on the topic of your own argument?? LOL

Their are not rights granted to any citizens in the constitution. Nowhere will you find a sentence that says 'a person has this right' but you will find that government has certain rights given to it upon its creation.

BTW, I've stayed on topic but you guys can't see that a person has whatever rights they want over themselves and their property which includes the right to have a racist policy or an irritating smoking policy. The bottom line is that we don't have any rights whatsoever unless we have the right of property because what stops other people from violating our rights? The fact that they can't decide what to do with our own property which lets our own free-will to be enacted onto that property. This is the ability of property rights to protect our freedom from other people and the government.

UH I never said they were rights but YOU tried to claim that the rights of smokers were being violated because they can't smoke in a bar, so I based my argument on YOUR standards and claims that their rights were being "trampled."

and NO you did not stay on topic you tried to change the topic after you realized the flaws in your argument. You tried to change the debate away from the smokers and non-smokers to the barowner.

Furthermore, YES "a person has whatever rights they want over themselves" to a point under the law. There are several things that are deemed illegal by society even when they only affect the person who chooses to engage in them.
However, another point where one person's rights end is when they affect those around them.
As far as property goes there are laws governing what you can and can't do with property even at the local level so LEGALLY there are limits to even "private" property.

Oh and I just love how you make that spiel at the end about protecting our freedoms. LOL It isn't even a real thread until someone tries to use that as an excuse for what ails you.

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm glad Rand Paul said what he said about desegregation because the state had no right to tell other people how to use their own private property. I know it is shitty to use it to showcase your racist views but don't you guys realize that freedom of speech is protected by the right to use your own property as you wish to express your racist views such as only serving 'whites only'. I know it is a sucky thing to do but why do we have the right to deny someone the use of their own property and subsequently the right of free speech. Where do we draw the line between good speech and bad speech in this society.

You tell them!

Who wants to eat next to them darkies anyway?

Hard to believe there are people like you in the 21st century

This is the kind of thing that forces you to think about whether you really believe in individual rights or not. I think this guy's opinions and the way he wants to use his private property are incredibly offensive -but there is NO right to not be offended by whatever you choose to be offended about. I also know there are (way too many) people who place no real value on our freedoms and those with such superficial understanding and support of our freedoms that what they REALLY mean when they claim to believe in free speech and the freedom to use one's private property as the owner sees fit -is nothing more than "I believe in free speech as long as you only say things I am comfortable with and I believe in private property rights only as long as you use your property the way I think you should." That isn't free speech and that is not private property rights though -it is the opposite.

Either you believe in free speech or you believe government should have the power to control what comes out of people's mouths, what they write and what opinions they are allowed to express - and punish those who have the "wrong" ones. Who decides what is 'wrong" will always be someone else, not the individual with that opinion. This has led to "re-education camps" in communist countries where government ends up going so far as to try and forcibly control even what a person THINKS. Is that really your idea of free speech? You really want a government with the power to punish you for what you say and power to FORCE you to use your private property the way IT sees fit instead of the way YOU see fit? You ever read the Federalist Papers about what the founders said about what free speech rights and when defending it the most vigorously was most critical? Because it is NOT when what someone said made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Your snide comments about "darkies" and "can't believe people like that exist" is REALLY saying that unless someone wants to restrict the freedoms of this person like you do -it MUST mean they actually share his personal opinions as well. Are you for real? YOU haven't the intellectual capacity to differentiate between someone's desire to uphold our free speech rights for EVERYONE as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights with HOW someone else may personally choose to exercise that right?

THAT IS ACTUALLY A TYPICAL STUNT OF LIBERALS to try and equate one's stronger belief and defense of individual rights with the offensive manner someone else may choose to exercise that right. WHAT BULLSHIT BUDDY. If you only have the "right" to free speech if its speech everyone likes -then YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS AT ALL! Free speech means a person may say things a lot of other people think are offensive, repulsive and may make them angry -but he does NOT have to first get government approval or YOUR approval before he is allowed to say it! That is what makes it a RIGHT in the first place!

The real test of whether you believe in FREEDOM and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is ONLY when someone else chooses to use them in a way you personally find offensive and thoroughly disagree with. And YOU flunked that test big time. How un-American of you. Its easy to claim to support free speech when its speech you like, isn't it? But YOU proved that you and people like you can NEVER be trusted to protect and safeguard MY rights because you have just told us all that the only "free speech" and "property rights" you will support are for those who think and opine exactly the same way you do.

TRY FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE YOU LIBERAL NUTJOBS! It really does work, it is not just limited to those who say things you don't like but exists for us as well - and does NOT require we forfeit our real rights to government when doing so means never getting them back -at least not peacefully.

This is how someone who believes in FREEDOM handles something like this instead of demanding we all forfeit rights to government so it can have the power and force to squash those for failing to express only politically correct opinions. I find this guy's racist views and desire to refuse to serve blacks to be so incredibly offensive that I choose to exercise MY right to never EVER enter the premises at all and will NEVER give him one dime of mine. Instead of demanding government squelch the use of his free speech, I will use MY free speech rights to encourage others to avoid his business entirely. I may even get a group together and hold a protest on the street outside his business. Because doing these things are MY rights - and if enough people share that same opinion and choose to exercise THEIR rights in this way, the guy will have to decide which is more important to him then. Staying in business and keeping his racist views to himself and out of his business practices - or having his business go under while stubbornly allowing his prejudice to destroy his business. Then his racism becomes HIS choice to personally reaffirm for himself whether or not it should dictate his business practices to the point of financially destroying himself.

Have you really never heard the saying "I disagree with what you said but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."? Any clue what that even means? All you told us is the exact opposite -essentially "If I disagree with what you said, I will demand government use its force and power to destroy you." But FREEDOM can do that in a far more meaningful way and doesn't require that the everyone else forfeit their freedoms in the process!

WOW all of those wonderfully spun words and in the end all you are trying to do is squash rightwinger's rights to express his freedoms and say what he wants to say as you try to frame him as antifreedom or un-American to do so.

Talk about a stunt used to squash those who disagree with you, there is none used more widely by the right than the act of attacking another's patriotism or love of our freedoms and country merely because they present an opinion that runs counter to yours.

 

[drsmith1072]

Dangerous when worried..... Democrats will eat their own.

I recall a time in the last election when Democrats even started to proclaim Bill (winded tally whacker) Clinton a racist to win the election for the chosen one... but... alas, they couldn't get his fat ass to fit under the bus, let alone Hillary's..

So you are trying to claim that the democrats are just like the republicans who are trying to purge their party of moderates, otherwise known as RiNOs?

Really?? How is that working out for you?? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

It is a fact left to their own devices people will indeed segregate themselves, It's human nature to be with those like yourself.

That is YOUR OPINION and to substantiate your opinion you are trying to use the general definition of segregation instead of the definition that actually applies to this argument.

People forming cliques with others who share similarites has NO bearing on the segregation that is being discussed in the thread. But thanks for being completely intellectually dishonest.

That's your opinion, I'm telling you that it's human nature for like people to group together especially along racial and ethnic lines and that is a fact.

OK, one more time, you stating it's a fact does NOT make it a FACT. All you are presenting is an unsubstantiated OPINION and nothing more.

Fruthermore, you ARE usuing the more general definition of segregation because it suits your needs to be vague even as you ignore the more specific definition that applies to the debate in question.


However, thanks for the spin, again.

 

[Foxfyre]

UH I never said they were rights but YOU tried to claim that the rights of smokers were being violated because they can't smoke in a bar, so I based my argument on YOUR standards and claims that their rights were being "trampled."

Well trying to bring the thread back on topic, let's just look at the smoker issue and those pesky property rights that some seem to have a problem with them being included in this discussion.

It was those property rights that Rand Paul was addressing when we got into this entire bruhaha. It is unfortunate that he chose an example that would trigger the knee jerk responses from the PC crowd and veer us off into a lot of pages of red herring arguments.

Not being allowed to smoke in a public place is a violation of nobody's rights.

But there is an issue whether it violates fundamental rights to be unable to allow smoking in your own business on your own land when it bothers nobody else. I can see being required to post a notice that smoking is allowed so people won't enter if they don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke. That wouldn't be unlike those signs warning heart patients of the presence of microwave ovens.

But I can't see how it respects individual rights to forbid smoking in a private place of business. And this is the fundamental principle that Rand Paul was addressing.

 

[paperview]

that didn't go far ENOUGH

as soon as slavery ended they should have been packed onto the same ships they've been brought in and sent back to Africa

...

By 1865, most of the slaves around had not been brought over on ships.

They were bred here, for slavery. Dumb fuck.

 

[drsmith1072]

UH I never said they were rights but YOU tried to claim that the rights of smokers were being violated because they can't smoke in a bar, so I based my argument on YOUR standards and claims that their rights were being "trampled."

Well trying to bring the thread back on topic, let's just look at the smoker issue and those pesky property rights that some seem to have a problem with them being included in this discussion.

It was those property rights that Rand Paul was addressing when we got into this entire bruhaha. It is unfortunate that he chose an example that would trigger the knee jerk responses from the PC crowd and veer us off into a lot of pages of red herring arguments.

Not being allowed to smoke in a public place is a violation of nobody's rights.

But there is an issue whether it violates fundamental rights to be unable to allow smoking in your own business on your own land when it bothers nobody else. I can see being required to post a notice that smoking is allowed so people won't enter if they don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke. That wouldn't be unlike those signs warning heart patients of the presence of microwave ovens.

But I can't see how it respects individual rights to forbid smoking in a private place of business. And this is the fundamental principle that Rand Paul was addressing.

You know I am pretty certain that my post had more content than the singular statement that you cut and pasted. Why not address the post as a whole since I did address the discussion of property rights and how it has limitations under the law. So I can't imagine why you would exclude those comments??

 

[Objective Voice]

You can ignore the facts, we all already know you're an ignorant fuck.

Go to any lunchroom and see for yourself or perhaps visit a prison and see how each race segregates themselves. You have nothing but opinions while I have facts on my side.

Who in their right mind uses the immoral lifestyle of prisoners as an example of how free men should co-exist? Of course they segregate themselves. It's called survival!!!

Now, school lunch rooms I can somewhat see, but that kind of stuff happens mostly in urban or rural areas where either violence is prominent or race relations are already somewhat problematic. I've visited my children's schools periodically and I see children of all races blending together all the time. Sure, you get pockets where white kids will sit together exclusively same as black and Hispanic children do. But in most cities across the nation where race isn't a problem in their communities, you really don't have such widespread segregation among the student body at their schools. This just isn't as big a deal within the public school system as you've made it out to be.