Great Quote... In the opening sentence, she says: "We cannot vote for people based on the color of their skin"... and I agree... But if Paul were elected, you could: ~Exclude people from a barber shop... "based on the color of their skin". ~Call the police had have customers removed from a restaurant... "based on the color of their skin". ~Ban certain people from your taxi's or busses... "based on the color of their skin" ~Segregate your schools... "based on the color of their skin".
In other words: "Vote for Ron & Racism Rules!"
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Great Quote... In the opening sentence, she says: "We cannot vote for people based on the color of their skin"... and I agree... But if Paul were elected, you could: ~Exclude people from a barber shop... "based on the color of their skin". ~Call the police had have customers removed from a restaurant... "based on the color of their skin". ~Ban certain people from your taxi's or busses... "based on the color of their skin" ~Segregate your schools... "based on the color of their skin".
In other words: "Vote for Ron & Racism Rules!"
What weak arguments...Throwing the racism card...It's worked sooooo well before. Under Ron Paul's philosophy you have rights to your personal property, imagine that radical idea. If I excluded Box from my place of business, I could be charged with violating the Americans with Disablilities Act for excluding the mentally challenged.
Hey Box, can a business owner have a "ladies night" offering discounted drink prices, excluding men from those same prices? Are men's rights violated by being over charged just because they are men?
Ron Paul's "PROPERTY RIGHTS"? The South fought the Civil War, not to keep Slavery... but for STATES RIGHTS! Same difference. Their States Rights was their Property Rights which included their SLAVES.
Dress up bigotry and racism as Property Rights, or as States Rights... it's still Bigotry & Racism.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I see Roxy still fails to respond to Cicero et al and their valid arguments.
Irrelevant Gad, declares which arguments are "VALID".
LMAO! Typical!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Since they were defeated on the subject of the post... their only recourse is to attack the poster not his posts. Sad.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Since they were defeated on the subject of the post... their only recourse is to attack the poster not his posts. Sad.
The very delusional belief that you are winning this debate is another one of those serious symptoms of the disease known as liberalism...put a rush on that meds order.
The very delusional belief that you are winning this debate is another one of those serious symptoms of the disease known as liberalism...put a rush on that meds order.
Gad considers his incoherent rants and personal attacks as "part of a debate"!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ron Paul's "PROPERTY RIGHTS"? The South fought the Civil War, not to keep Slavery... but for STATES RIGHTS! Same difference. Their States Rights was their Property Rights which included their SLAVES.
Dress up bigotry and racism as Property Rights, or as States Rights... it's still Bigotry & Racism.
Boxy again muddying up the argument by dragging slavery into it. Jim Crow laws, illegal, violates civil liberties forcing business owners to practice segregation of seperate but equal. Forcing a private business owner to enter into a contract with a person is also a violation of civil liberties and private property rights. This has nothing to do with race, creed, or color. Constitutioanly, an African American does not have to enter into a contract with a white person if he or she chooses not to.
Boxy again muddying up the argument by dragging slavery into it. Jim Crow laws, illegal, violates civil liberties forcing business owners to practice segregation of seperate but equal. Forcing a private business owner to enter into a contract with a person is also a violation of civil liberties and private property rights.
Jim Crow "LAWS" were a factor, but the real issue were White customers and White Business owners who would boycott any White businessman who dealt with minorities equally. Speaking of RIGHTS... a White taxi driver who picked up Black patrons in his cab would never get another White customer again... The community would see to that. His "RIGHTS"? Comply with community endorsed racism or go out of business. More of Ron Paul's Economics here... anyone who wasn't a racist, had to comply with the racists, or be run out of business. The solution??? Federal Laws that protected the minorities... BUT ALSO PROTECTED THE BUSINESSMAN WHO WANTED TO INTEGRATE but couldn't.
This has nothing to do with race, creed, or color. Constitutioanly, an African American does not have to enter into a contract with a white person if he or she chooses not to.
If an African American wanted care from the only business in town... and the business was run by a Ron Paul Bigot... he would be out of luck. Not because he wouldn't pay, but ONLY because of the color of his skin. The only surgeon in town with the skills to do a needed operation, but the surgeon was a Ron Paul Bigot... The minorities die... the bigots cheer!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Jim Crow "LAWS" were a factor, but the real issue were White customers and White Business owners who would boycott any White businessman who dealt with minorities equally. Speaking of RIGHTS... a White taxi driver who picked up Black patrons in his cab would never get another White customer again... The community would see to that. His "RIGHTS"? Comply with community endorsed racism or go out of business. More of Ron Paul's Economics here... anyone who wasn't a racist, had to comply with the racists, or be run out of business. The solution??? Federal Laws that protected the minorities... BUT ALSO PROTECTED THE BUSINESSMAN WHO WANTED TO INTEGRATE but couldn't.
If an African American wanted care from the only business in town... and the business was run by a Ron Paul Bigot... he would be out of luck. Not because he wouldn't pay, but ONLY because of the color of his skin. The only surgeon in town with the skills to do a needed operation, but the surgeon was a Ron Paul Bigot... The minorities die... the bigots cheer!
So your position is, paying customers will be refused service due to the color of skin? If Ron Paul was president, people would just start refusing money from customers because of race? Does that harm the business owner or the customer, or both? BTW, your statement is bigoted in itself. In your post, you frame your argument by stating that surgeons can only be white and the white surgeons would let black people die. Can surgeons be Black, Asian, or Hispanic? Hypothetically speaking, in your ultra racist world where people would let others die because of their race, a world where surgeon are not black but only white, would black surgeons let white people die by refusing to accept their money for their specialized service?
I find it hard to believe that without these laws people would just stop accepting money from people for ANY reason, especially based on race.
Logged
