Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
& this is like the sophistical argument re: the so-called legitimacy of voluntary slave contracts i.e. apart from its involuntary nature, slavery is alright.
It's circular & nonsensical.
I could agree to become your slave but without contractual tenets in place defining the arrangement it is simply a title. I might as well agree to become your "hero"...whatever that may mean.
Slavery is a lack of consent to a labor arrangement (courtesy of Frank).
See that word "consent" in there? That means legitimate consent: two parties free from duress and with the cognitive ability to do so enter into an agreement.
And what about Miracle on 34th Street? You must have missed me asking you if you've seen it on the other page. I know you aren't avoiding me Chi.
I stand by this: Anyone who agrees with a business denying service to someone because of their race, skin color and ethnicity, said persons are not fit to hold public office.
You, me, & a lot of others have identified the fact that someone who does not understand the rights of the people he represents is not fit to hold office. Hopefully there will always be people who question bone-headedness.
Quote:
...That prompted a Facebook post from Clark, hailing the decision as a "win for freedom of speech and freedom of religion," according to the Argus Leader newspaper, which reported on the since-deleted post.
Some Facebook users began questioning Clark's post, prompting the state lawmaker to respond to one.
"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."
Clark deleted the post on Tuesday, saying he had "jumped in on it a little bit too fast," the Leader reported. ...
Mr. Clark apparently got a tad overly excited when he heard about the SCOTUS ruling re: the baker in Colorado & admitted he "jumped in on it a little bit too fast".
Does he represent an entire district of business owners alone? A business is property. Was he elected to represent property or people? Is he aware of the Civil Rights Acts?
It's as if a number of American people have been brainwashed into believing people are properties, & properties are people when even a child recognizes this to be nonsensical.
Still looking for converts? Sorry not a blockhead like Walter Block who was (his words) converted by Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, et al.
Good luck attempting to sell your punctured mythologies elsewhere.
Still looking for converts? Sorry not a blockhead like Walter Block who was (his words) converted by Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, et al.
Good luck attempting to sell your punctured mythologies elsewhere.
This isn't meant to be an insult, but when I read some of your posts I always picture a dog snarling at someone trying to get them to come out of their cage.
This follows the path the Republican party has recently been going down. Would not be surprised to see refusing service eventually added to their official campaign platform. They seem to think business (including government services) and personal rights are one in the same.
This isn't meant to be an insult, but when I read some of your posts I always picture a dog snarling at someone trying to get them to come out of their cage.
The following is somewhat relevant to this thread: Could someone please give me the basic gist of why so many Neo-Nazis or KKK members have Republican supporters or leanings when the KKK was developed by an earlier branch of the Democrats? Yes, I could always Google the answer to this question, but I want to hear what other people have to say before using Google on such a question.
It took force to get rid of such actions. Sometimes, force is the only way to deal with some individuals. It took brute force to our slavery to an end in the USA.
Slavery itself was government force. 'Murica was the only nation that used force to end slavery. Let that sink in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
It took government force to bring an end to Jim Crow.
No it didn't. Legislation ended it. We the people weren't shooting government. We the people turned back Jim Crow through the use of peaceful civil disobedience. Jim Crow itself was government force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
Sometimes people do what they do because they can.
Because others don't have the backbone to defend the rights of the individual.
It's like you saw a movie based on fiction and thought it was reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
