|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Ahh, but never let the facts get in the way of a ridiculous rant.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Do they? I'm interested in how. How much has Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee expanded gov't?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241 Likes: 594
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241 Likes: 594 |
Quote:
Quote:
Doesn't just about every business with a store-front have a sign above the register saying they reserve the right to refuse to do business with anyone they choose?
Usually, it reads something to the effect of "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" or something to that effect. Doesn't actually mean much unless it's a restaurant. I'd bet they'd serve those people if it was a surfing supply shop LOL
No no, I am aware of that one, but it's not the one to which I'm referring.
Many non-restaurants have signs above/behind the cash registers that say, "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to..." I'm positive about the wording I included in quotes, but don't remember the rest. I always read it like, "If you're a jerk, we're not going to put up with your crap."
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Do they? I'm interested in how. How much has Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee expanded gov't?
Ted Cruz? The guy who two weeks ago introduced legislation to give the federal government further power in regards to the definition of marriage?
As far as politicians go, those who align and identify with the Tea Party have a poor a record as any.
I don't doubt there are earnest folks out there who identify with the stated principles of the Tea Party, but they're being duped.
Again, I don't get the chest thumping pride or derision of other philosophies. The Tea Party has had plenty of time yo carve out a name for themselves, and they've failed as miserably as the sects they deride.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Doesn't just about every business with a store-front have a sign above the register saying they reserve the right to refuse to do business with anyone they choose?
Usually, it reads something to the effect of "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" or something to that effect. Doesn't actually mean much unless it's a restaurant. I'd bet they'd serve those people if it was a surfing supply shop LOL
No no, I am aware of that one, but it's not the one to which I'm referring.
Many non-restaurants have signs above/behind the cash registers that say, "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to..." I'm positive about the wording I included in quotes, but don't remember the rest. I always read it like, "If you're a jerk, we're not going to put up with your crap."
Ive seen those signs as well. Often on places that serve booze. Ive also been in places that have large "No Colors" signs (referring to MC patches).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Do they? I'm interested in how. How much has Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee expanded gov't?
Ted Cruz? The guy who two weeks ago introduced legislation to give the federal government further power in regards to the definition of marriage?
As far as politicians go, those who align and identify with the Tea Party have a poor a record as any.
sure, many will claim the Tea Party, but how many actually have Tea Party support? The 3 I named are the only ones I would truely call Tea Party politicians, though we do have a few more running this year in the primaries.
I don't doubt there are earnest folks out there who identify with the stated principles of the Tea Party, but they're being duped.
Again, I don't get the chest thumping pride or derision of other philosophies. The Tea Party has had plenty of time yo carve out a name for themselves, and they've failed as miserably as the sects they deride.
They have been around for 4 years, hardly enough time to make a real impact nationally(locally I agree they have had plenty of time and made an impact in many states). You'll see them a little more this year and I think 2016 is when you'll see the biggest splash with both Paul and Cruz both likely GOP candidates for president.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
j/c
The Tea Party gets its reputation because of the fringe element that gets the most press. Just as with all parties.
I don't believe people like Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin actually represent the bulk of the Tea Party. The media portrayal isn't a reflection of reality. And that street travels in both directions.
If that's the case, then I wish someone who truly represents the Tea Party with a BIGGER mouth than Palin or Limbaugh would stand up and shut them down.. They make a mockery of the Tea Party Movement. They make it sound like a fringe group interested only in disrupting things for their own use.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Paul and Cruz would be huge longshots to win the nomination, and if either did you're more or less giving the general election to the Democrats.
You'd think that the GOP wouldn't slit it's throat like that. Then again, both parties have been making poor choices in that regard for awhile.
They get a fresh start in the next presidential, and I foresee them going with the safest bet again. Last time around it was Romney. Guy had little chance to win, and buried what he did when he opened his mouth, but the selection was clear and understandable.
They would be best served to not turn their primaries into a clown show again. That hurt them a bit last time around.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Doesn't just about every business with a store-front have a sign above the register saying they reserve the right to refuse to do business with anyone they choose?
Usually, it reads something to the effect of "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" or something to that effect. Doesn't actually mean much unless it's a restaurant. I'd bet they'd serve those people if it was a surfing supply shop LOL
No no, I am aware of that one, but it's not the one to which I'm referring.
Many non-restaurants have signs above/behind the cash registers that say, "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to..." I'm positive about the wording I included in quotes, but don't remember the rest. I always read it like, "If you're a jerk, we're not going to put up with your crap."
Can't say I ever saw a sign like that anywhere, but then I wasn't looking for it either so maybe that's the reason.. Dunno..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I disagree. They would be longshots to win the primary, I grant you that, but I think they would stand better chance(paul in particular) to win the general than somebody like Huckabee. The GOP has ran moderate/progressives for my entire life. Bush was a big gov't guy, McCain was a big gov't guy, and Romney was a big gov't guy(thought not as big as the first two).
You know who doesn't win anymore? Establishment people who love the status quo. Huckabee doesn't inspire anyone. You know who does? Rand Paul. I know many people my age are attracted to him and his libertarian views.
The good microcosm of this is the KY senate race. The establishment is still pulling for McConnell, because he's more moderate, but Matt Bevin actually polls better against the Democrat challenger than McConell does. The GOP thinks they can out progressive the democrats, and you strictly can't. You have to out freedom them, and that my friend is how you win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
You know who doesn't win anymore? Establishment people who love the status quo.
What are you basing that statement on?
That's primarily who wins. People say they're tired of it, but they pull the same levers year after year.
As for Rand Paul, he's aligned himself too closely with the whole Tea Party thing, and that's an association that won't play well in a general election.
If there's any time to play a long shot hand, it's in an open field without an incumbent, but I don't see the GOP taking the big swing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I'm basing it on the last 6 years(last 4 in particular). Obama was not considered "establishment", McCain and Romney both were. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz all beat establishment candidates in the primaries, then beat establishment dems in the general.
Also I pointed out in many cases, Tea Party candidates were often favored against the Dem opponent, but the GOP was scared to lose, so they went establishment. America is becoming more and more libertarian every day. The GOP needs to embrace it NOW while they are still the perfered partners. If they continue to keep them at arms reach, they will lose them to the Dems and you will lose yet another generation of voters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,125 Likes: 134 |
McCain was the best MAN of the bunch.. But in general, they are all a bunch of ding dongs looking out for those that get them elected.. I'm not picking on them for that, most all politicians are that way.
I guess I just don't like politicians. LOL
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Obama is pretty "Establishment'-friendly and status quo. I guess you could make an argument against that in his initial run for the nomination, but he's been pretty status quo across the board since then.
Guys like Paul and Cruz would get slaughtered in a general election. I mean, just murdered. Joe freaking Biden could probably beat either or them, with ease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
You and I will disagree on that my friend. I think Rand Paul would do very well in a general election. Do you know how many libertarian votes the GOP misses out on every year? A large amount vote the libertarian candidate, and others vote for Dems. Things like gay marriage push libertarians away from the GOP. People like Rand Paul could pull those libertarians to the GOP.
Many conservatives sat home last election(the polls show it), because they weren't excited. Huckabee doesn't excited anyone, Romney didn't excite anyone, McCain didn't excite anyone. You need young, energetic people with new ideas.
I heard this same stump speech in '12. "The Tea Party needs to shut up, Romney can win, nobody else can. Santorum/Perry will get destroyed. etc." Give people something to get excited about.
I think you are really underselling the popularity of the Tea Party. Regardless Dems will get 40% and the GOP will get 40%, independents will get 2%, that leaves 18% to fight over. That 18% is a large part libertarian, and that percentage will only grow as people get tired of large gov't progressives on both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,804 Likes: 1346
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 67,804 Likes: 1346 |
I believe what you will gain in one direction, you will lose in the other. Many people who consider themselves as moderate, gravitate towards people like Romney and McCain. While you may gain some votes in the direction you indicated, you will lose votes in the other direction.
It would be interesting to see though....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I heard this same stump speech in '12. "The Tea Party needs to shut up, Romney can win, nobody else can. Santorum/Perry will get destroyed. etc."
Are you trying to imply that Santorum or Perry wouldn't have been destroyed?
That was the line then, and it was pretty much correct. The GOP didn't have much of a shot at unseating Obama. Romney was pretty much their best option, though that was a great deal due to them letting their primaries turn into a rodeo.
Quote:
I think you are really underselling the popularity of the Tea Party
They're extremely unpopular, as far as viability in a general election goes.
Most of the population either views them as ignorant racists or toothless idealists.
They appeal to a small but fervent base. Those types of scenarios can pump people up, but it's not viable in the long term.
Not saying any of that is right or wrong...but it is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
I heard this same stump speech in '12. "The Tea Party needs to shut up, Romney can win, nobody else can. Santorum/Perry will get destroyed. etc."
Are you trying to imply that Santorum or Perry wouldn't have been destroyed?
I remember, that wasn't the line at the time. The line was "Obama is an unpopular president. Romney can unseat him easily, because he's moderate. The others are too extreme." I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. If you keep voting the same bums in, you will keep getting the same garbage out. The bad part is, the best president of my lifetime was Clinton
Quote:
I think you are really underselling the popularity of the Tea Party
They're extremely unpopular, as far as viability in a general election goes.
Most of the population either views them as ignorant racists or toothless idealists.
They appeal to a small but fervent base. Those types of scenarios can pump people up, but it's not viable in the long term.
Not saying any of that is right or wrong...but it is correct.
The people that view them like that tend to be the elitists in the parties. Libertarians don't see them that way, independents don't see them that way. The people who do are either the ones who listen to the GOP establishment who fears them, or the left wing that thinks their smarter than them.
Last edited by ByrdDawg; 02/27/14 07:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
PDR i respectfully disagree, but not on the premise you think.
I personally don't think it matters Tea Party, Repub, Dem, even independent.
what will matter is who talks the best...the Tea Party hasn't introduced anyone who is a good orator...a Good speak.
Rand Paul is that "good speaker" Rand Paul IMO has the uncanny ability of being able to sell himself...Rand Paul is "likeable" There are lots of so called "minorities" in his home state that voted for him....it was part of the reason he won.
Rand Paul won't say anything stupid or allow the media to bailt him into saying anything stupid because this guy, unlike most politicians and the Tea Party in particular, is very smart...Rand Paul is as sharp as a tac.
Rand Paul is also a bit more liberal then his father was, and that resonated with his voters in his home state.
If Rand Paul decides to run.....the fact that he is a good speaker, a likeable guy, and a guy that wont put his foot in his mouth, and a guy that has no scandals or soundbites for the media to use against him, has a very real chance of winning.
the only question is.,..will the crooked primary process allow him to win...thats the number one question....
Honestly, if Paul would win the primary...he would eat any of the Dem nominees alive in a televised debate because the dude is so darn smart and so good at getting his points across and explaining in manners average everyday people can understand(his dad wasn't very good at this)but Rand is.
I guess only time will tell, but Rand isn't the everyday Tea Party guy....he is very likeable....IMO the only candidate i feel would be close to his quality is that Bobby Jindel gov of Louisanna...he is as conservative as they come, and the Dems couldn't use race against him....which is always their number one card. He could also very well win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Rand Paul is a good guy, but no way he gets close to the Presidential race. Him and his father started the Tea Party movement, and unfortunately it backfired on them with their unintended alignment with Reagan Republicans/Neo-Cons. If Sarah Palin with her libertarian backers and John McCain couldn't beat Obama then no libertarian will. Mainly because libertarian policy sounds horrible to the general public. The only way they could ever win a presidential election is if Jill Stein was their only competition, and maybe not even then.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
Rand Paul believes we didn't need The Civil Rights Act.
That says enough about his chances.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,981 Likes: 356
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,981 Likes: 356 |
I have no idea how anyone could say that the Tea Party has somehow become co-opted by the neo-cons. lol People get mad because the Tea Party tries to cut spending, or refuses to raise the debt ceiling without corresponding cuts, against the wishes of the Republican leadership, yet somehow they are pawns of the leadership?
There would be no need for the Tea Party if the Republicans hadn't become a party of neo-cons, and in fact if they hadn't moved so close to Democrats on so many issues that the only difference becomes some social issues that most people don't care all that much about.
Now I am not going to pretend that the Tea Party has been perfect, because it hasn't been. They should stick to the principles they campaign on much harder. They should say that they ran, and won, on making government smaller, and cutting spending, and that's exactly what they are going to do. Unfortunately, there are far better politicians on the other sides (Republicans and Democrats) who push a message better, and who create public opinion better. (and yes, they create it)
Now, that all said, they should be willing to negotiate, but negotiation has to be a 2 way street. Reagan compromised with a Democrat Congress and got major tax cuts through Congress. He gave on smaller issues to get his priorities through. That is the way the Tea Party should approach it. "We'll go along with this, but we want this other in return." The things they give on should be consistent with their beliefs. The problem with the way things are right now is that the Republicans want to give on everything and then try to fight a few major battles. They should resist the things that are fringe, using those as smaller negotiation pieces, and fight the major battles to the death. They should go full PR mode on those items. Unfortunately, the Republican establishment is weak, and they think that if they can just make people "like them", then they'll be able to win. However, becoming "Democrat Light" doesn't do them any good. If people want a Democrat, they'll vote for one.
Of course, it really doesn't seem to matter anymore. We haven't passed a budget in what ..... 5 years? Laws are enacted and/or changed with the stroke of a pen by the President. Laws are violated, and the Republicans say and do nothing about it, because they don't want to give up that power if/when they take back over.
I don't see a way out of this mess until and unless the 2 major Parties merge, and force the emergence of a new political party that is actually a conservative party. Right now it's often way too hard to tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Because the Koch Brothers are neocons and help support a majority of the tea party. It's funny how you say the Republicans are becoming more Democratic while I see it as the Democrats are becoming more Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,981 Likes: 356
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,981 Likes: 356 |
Quote:
Because the Koch Brothers are neocons and help support a majority of the tea party. It's funny how you say the Republicans are becoming more Democratic while I see it as the Democrats are becoming more Republican.
In what way?
I guess Guantanamo ...... maybe ...... but that has moved so far from the public eye that it's been forgotten.
What have the Democrats moved on in the past 6 years? What have they compromised on? Where have they moved towards the Republicans?
I am just really curious, because I find it fascinating.
I am also really fascinated at how PR works in a Presidential election.
John McCain was the face of compromise and giving in prior to running for President. He tried, a little, to toughen up to make himself look better, but he is, by nature, a guy who gives to get along.
Somehow he was turned into a right wing lunatic who was so extreme that he makes Ted Cruz and Rand Paul look like flaming liberals. 
To me he was far to left a candidate for President.
Then the Republicans ran Mitt Romney, an East Coast governor from one of the more liberal states in America. He tried to be a stronger conservative, and tried to convince people that he was, but in the end he was what he was ..... which was a center (at best) type candidate.
I would rather see the Republicans actually run a strong conservative candidate, running on cutting spending and getting the country back on sound financial footing. (if that's even possible anymore) We have blown up the deficit under the past 2 Presidents, but especially since the Democrats took back control of Congress.
The Republicans are afraid to be what they say they are. They are afraid people won't like tham, but I think that they come off as wimps, scared to stand up for themselves, and what they profess to believe in.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012That's a pretty decent site explaining it. If you wish to look further there's a lot of articles published about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
Quote:
The Republicans are afraid to be what they say they are. They are afraid people won't like tham, but I think that they come off as wimps, scared to stand up for themselves, and what they profess to believe in.
They aren't afraid. This asinine bill shows it completely. They're willing to go kicking, screaming, and crying while the rest of society awakens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,981 Likes: 356
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,981 Likes: 356 |
Quote:
Quote:
The Republicans are afraid to be what they say they are. They are afraid people won't like tham, but I think that they come off as wimps, scared to stand up for themselves, and what they profess to believe in.
They aren't afraid. This asinine bill shows it completely. They're willing to go kicking, screaming, and crying while the rest of society awakens.
That's one stupid bill. I am sure that I could find other stupid bills proposed by Democrats if I wanted to check every state.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
People are turned off by the polarizing right-wing nature of the GOP social policy. State's rights doesn't give you the right to prevent opportunity, services, and other such things from American citizens. What they prevent is guaranteed by the founding fathers in the same document and amendments. The same card was trumpeted in the south during Jim Crow. Look where that got those states.
The left doesn't really have much to do with muddying equal rights for all Americans. There always is the random gun bill (that really is never as bad as the doomsday "the evil liburals are coming for mah gunz!!!!!" fantasy a lot of people want to live in.....)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
j/c I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like. Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid? I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice. I also think Tea party people are trying to fight cancer with cancer and that is just plain silly 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
j/c
I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.
Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?
I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.
I also think Tea party people are trying to fight cancer with cancer and that is just plain silly
Dang you had me in agreement up untill your very last comment. Everything else you said is right lol.
The Tea Party I feel is trying to fight Cancer with Chemo. The Chemo isn't fun, it isn't pretty, and it will hurt a ton at first. In the end however, it's better to endure the Chemo(budget cuts, fewer entitlements, fewer subsidies, etc.) then to let the Cancer(debt) continue to spread and kill you.
I too wish there was a magic pill that cured cancer, but there is not. Americans however are afraid of the Chemo treatment and the pain it will bring. So instead they opt for denial. Somehow they believe the cancer can't kill them if they don't believe they have cancer. So instead they just keep smoking their cigs and letting cancer spread hoping the somehow it will magically disappear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.
Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?
What about when Bill dials 911 because his partner Joe is having a heart attack, and the ambulance driver for the private ambulance company sees that Bill and Joe are a gay couple and refuses to take Joe to the hospital? Or Bill's car breaks down in the middle of winter and the tow truck driver won't tow his car because it has a rainbow decal on the rear windshield?
Quote:
I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.
I haven't seen anybody suggest criminal penalties for those who discriminate. Not here at least.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
EMT's, Dr's and such take an oath, Joe Schmoe running a diner doesnt. That is a poor example.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I didn't say anything about a Dr or EMT…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.
Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?
What about when Bill dials 911 because his partner Joe is having a heart attack, and the ambulance driver for the private ambulance company sees that Bill and Joe are a gay couple and refuses to take Joe to the hospital? Or Bill's car breaks down in the middle of winter and the tow truck driver won't tow his car because it has a rainbow decal on the rear windshield?
Well then, call a different towing service or don't put a sticker in your back window. IMO you have every right to express yourself and your opinion, but others should have the right to not do business with you because of that. The ambulance driver is a little difficult I suppose, perhaps you could make an exception is the law for emergency personel?
Quote:
I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.
I haven't seen anybody suggest criminal penalties for those who discriminate. Not here at least.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241 Likes: 594
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 12,241 Likes: 594 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.
Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?
What about when Bill dials 911 because his partner Joe is having a heart attack, and the ambulance driver for the private ambulance company sees that Bill and Joe are a gay couple and refuses to take Joe to the hospital? Or Bill's car breaks down in the middle of winter and the tow truck driver won't tow his car because it has a rainbow decal on the rear windshield?
Quote:
I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.
I haven't seen anybody suggest criminal penalties for those who discriminate. Not here at least.
The point about the private ambulance companies is a good one, though. I still think that the argument about business practices holds, even in these specific situations. The private ambulance company that discriminates on who it's going to pick up will have work dry up QUICK when they prove to be so unreliable. Worst case, a couple people will be affected when their help doesn't show up before contracts start getting torn up.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Arent their EMT's in the ambulance?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,849 Likes: 952
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,849 Likes: 952 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.
Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?
What about when Bill dials 911 because his partner Joe is having a heart attack, and the ambulance driver for the private ambulance company sees that Bill and Joe are a gay couple and refuses to take Joe to the hospital? Or Bill's car breaks down in the middle of winter and the tow truck driver won't tow his car because it has a rainbow decal on the rear windshield?
Quote:
I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.
I haven't seen anybody suggest criminal penalties for those who discriminate. Not here at least.
Now that's a ludicrous hypothetical. First of all, it would have to be a policy of the company that owns the ambulance service to refuse emergency aid, not the discretion of the driver. Secondly, there's not an emergency responce service company in this country that would take on the backlash of writing a policy to refuse aid that would save a life.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
It's funny how you say the Republicans are becoming more Democratic while I see it as the Democrats are becoming more Republican.
There is a lot of truth to both of these... Our two party system is quickly becoming party 1A and party 1B...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's funny how you say the Republicans are becoming more Democratic while I see it as the Democrats are becoming more Republican.
There is a lot of truth to both of these... Our two party system is quickly becoming party 1A and party 1B...
Yep. Basically when voting for Presidents you only vote for social issues and nothing else. Now that doesn't apply to the 2008 Presidential Election, but with enough time (10 years or so), I could see the Republicans wanting to go national healthcare route.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
If businesses aren't allowed to discriminate based on whatever bigotry....how is that enforced?
Obviously there would have to be some sort of fine in place or the mandate would make no sense.
What happens when someone refuses to pay that fine? Typically you would be put in jail right?
If you want to advance the argument fully (uh oh here is the gun)...what happens if that person then refuses to be taken to jail?
When you are arguing for government intervention you are threatening people with a gun when you boil things down.
If a private company was foolish enough to hire some bigot and he let a man die...there are likely grounds they would be sued, and the negative PR would destroy the company. Any large company wouldn't be able to do these policies. I could see a small towing company doing it, but they would likely be liable for some sort of negligent manslaughter if they refused to tow some guy in the middle of a Minnesota blizzard for example.
Byrd: I can't seem to explain why I dislike the tea party without sounding like a pompous windbag. I basically see it as a means of justifying the government as if any iteration is acceptable morally. If I had to pick my poison I'd go with them.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... If Arizona bill becomes law, will
NFL move Super Bowl?
|
|
