When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[Jason]

Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage was so calculated and disingenuous. He obviously thinks the LGBT community is comprised of stupid people.

[hypehat]

IDK, if you think about it like that it becomes 'How dare he enfranchise me and enhance my civil rights, he doesn't mean it!' and well, where does that get you? The '64 Civil Rights Act was 'Kennedy's Act' rather than a massive sea change on the part of the Legislature/LBJ/whoever wrt to African-American rights and I don't think anyone worth listening to has said it wasn't welcome because 'they didn't mean it'.


And, of course, Obama's a raging queer anyway so the point is moot - cheers for the information, GreatUrduPoet. You fucking nutter.

[Jason]

I would push for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too.

[Heysaboda]

Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage was so calculated and disingenuous. He obviously thinks the LGBT community is comprised of stupid people.

In 10 or even 5 years, or less, the "LGBT marriage thingy" simply will no longer be an issue.

"Move along people, nothing to see here."

-- Sgt. Lt. Frank Drebin

[hypehat]

I would push for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too.

I'd really like to hear why. Especially since I know you just hate just saying controversial things for the sake of it....


Does it involve the nasty government getting in the way of the bigotry of decent, hard working whiteAmericans who just want their constitutional right to be free live in a segregated society, perchance?

[Heysaboda]

Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage was so calculated and disingenuous. He obviously thinks the LGBT community is comprised of stupid people.

Seriously, I am happy that one politician, just one (who happens to be Prez), came out and finally did the right thing.  Can't we all be happy with that?

 

[hypehat]

Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage was so calculated and disingenuous. He obviously thinks the LGBT community is comprised of stupid people.

Seriously, I am happy that one politician, just one (who happens to be Prez), came out and finally did the right thing.  Can't we all be happy with that?

 

It would appear not. 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I would push for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too.

It's amazing how the people who brag the loudest about loving this country and being patriots are the most negative and hateful people around. They don't love this country or even like it. They hate it with a passion. They might like the 2nd amendment perhaps, but that's about it. They scream and cry about their rights like big overfed babies while bitching and complaining about everyone else's. They really need to go off and find some uncharted land and create their own Dodge City.

Either that or they simply like to say things for the effect..... in which case, I can't certainly appreciate the entertainment value.

[Heysaboda]

I would push for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too.

TRBB, ya know I love your "out there" posts TRBB.... but........... in this case............

I suggest you read up on convict leasing and debtor's peonage in The South, in the 100 years AFTER the Civil War, and perhaps that would give you a better context for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and why it was/is needed.

Not trying to be snarky here either (for once).

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

He could (and probably has) read any damn thing you could toss at him and it wouldn't make a difference. People like this just love to piss other people off and get everyone all full of steam. I think that's about all it boils down to, other than the basic "nature or nurture" question.

[Jason]

Title II is the problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you can't get rid of the whole thing (I doubt the whole thing would ever be repealed), Title II is a great place to start. It's more overstepping of the boundaries of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution...a big no-no. I'm not saying that people should just go hardcore racist on others, but no amount of lawmaking will end racism. However, freedom of association is the big issue here. People should have the right to associate with whom they please and should not have to provide a reason as to why they may not wish to associate with a certain individual.

If I run a convenience store and a customer causes a problem that leads to an uneasy atmosphere for the other customers, I should have the right to ask that individual to leave. However, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows for people of "special interest groups" to possibly take legal action against me because in their minds, my refusing their business might somehow equal discrimination. I am not the bigoted type; my like or dislike of people has nothing to do with race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. Title II just removes "beyond a reasonable doubt" from the equation. And considering how many people believe "all oppression nowadays is at the hands of white, heterosexual males", Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not do anything to improve civil rights but everything to muddy the waters and make people walk on too many eggshells. No thanks.

If that makes me a bigot (and no doubt I'll have a few hecklers in this thread), so be it. I prefer to associate with whom I wish.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

You're only further illuminating the NEED for the law to step in here. Outright racism is not a good thing and it is not OK to go hardcore racist on anyone, but people will and DO do so and when they do someone usually gets hurt. It is not illegal to not like this person or people or that person or people for whatever the hell reason you wish, but the moment it crosses the line into prohibitive discrimination for no other apparent (or arguable) reason, then it damn well should be illegal.

My folks live in Idaho and I see rampant hardcore, ugly, and violent racism whenever I'm up there. It damn well exists and if there weren't certain laws, it would be practiced in the most atrocious way possible....

People fought hard for the right to simply not have to hang from trees. It is serious business whether you feel so or not.

No one cares if you or anyone else wants to hang out with white people only or Jewish people only or Asian people only. No one cares, so quit crying about it..... and IF you own a liquor store in a neighborhood where black people happen to live, you should damn well expect a black customer or two, duh! If you don't like black people and don't want them in your store, then, sure, you can yell out or pull your guns on any black kid who even remotely resembles a thug. That's your right and who gives a damn anyway? We all know overt racism when we see it, and if you're guilty of that yourself: no one cares either. Quit crying. No one's going to take away your guns or make you associate with whatever race you'd rather not. No one's going to make you buy boxes of condoms to pass out free to the kids, and no one's going to force you to have an abortion.... Clean your guns and stop crying.

[Jason]

I would push for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too.

It's amazing how the people who brag the loudest about loving this country and being patriots are the most negative and hateful people around. They don't love this country or even like it. They hate it with a passion. They might like the 2nd amendment perhaps, but that's about it. They scream and cry about their rights like big overfed babies while bitching and complaining about everyone else's. They really need to go off and find some uncharted land and create their own Dodge City.

Either that or they simply like to say things for the effect..... in which case, I can't certainly appreciate the entertainment value.

I wouldn't exactly say I "hate" this country but I'm by no means some fist-pumping, "USA! USA! USA!" drone, either. Patriotism is a waste of time and energy. I don't believe in a "pledge of allegiance"; my allegiance is to myself. I wouldn't say I bitch and complain about the rights of others. I've defended freedom of speech, the right to assembly, free exercise of religion, and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't rag on the rights of others. Those rights are the same as mine.

[Jason]

You're only further illuminating the NEED for the law to step in here. Outright racism is not a good thing and it is not OK to go hardcore racist on anyone, but people will and DO do so and when they do someone usually gets hurt. It is not illegal to not like this person or people or that person or people for whatever the hell reason you wish, but the moment it crosses the line into prohibitive discrimination for no other apparent (or arguable) reason, then it damn well should be illegal.

My folks live in Idaho and I see rampant hardcore, ugly, and violent racism whenever I'm up there. It damn well exists and if there weren't certain laws, it would be practiced in the most atrocious way possible....

People fought hard for the right to simply not have to hang from trees. It is serious business whether you feel so or not.

I never said outright racism was a good thing, nor did I say it was good for people to go hardcore racist on others. I have no time for people who have nothing better to do than air their inflammatory racial remarks. However...I would defend the right of someone to say they don't wish to serve a certain "group" of people and I'll tell you why - let the market place deal with that individual. Bad news travels fast. A business owner who only allows, say, "white Christians" to patronize his business will be hurt much more quickly by the customer base than by any legal system.

I agree that there should be some kind of base regulatory system in place for racism when it comes to criminal cases like murder, rape, or pedophilia...but the other stuff can very easily be sorted out by the market place.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

You're only further illuminating the NEED for the law to step in here. Outright racism is not a good thing and it is not OK to go hardcore racist on anyone, but people will and DO do so and when they do someone usually gets hurt. It is not illegal to not like this person or people or that person or people for whatever the hell reason you wish, but the moment it crosses the line into prohibitive discrimination for no other apparent (or arguable) reason, then it damn well should be illegal.

My folks live in Idaho and I see rampant hardcore, ugly, and violent racism whenever I'm up there. It damn well exists and if there weren't certain laws, it would be practiced in the most atrocious way possible....

People fought hard for the right to simply not have to hang from trees. It is serious business whether you feel so or not.

I never said outright racism was a good thing, nor did I say it was good for people to go hardcore racist on others. I have no time for people who have nothing better to do than air their inflammatory racial remarks. However...I would defend the right of someone to say they don't wish to serve a certain "group" of people and I'll tell you why - let the market place deal with that individual. Bad news travels fast. A business owner who only allows, say, "white Christians" to patronize his business will be hurt much more quickly by the customer base than by any legal system.

I agree that there should be some kind of base regulatory system in place for racism when it comes to criminal cases like murder, rape, or pedophilia...but the other stuff can very easily be sorted out by the market place.

 let the market place deal with that individual

?

OK, there is no point in bothering with you anymore...... You can happily not see a single post of mine in this thread from this moment on..... I'll let the market place deal with you....

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Actually, RealBeachBoy: I re-read the "let the market place deal with that individual" part of your reply again and it does indeed make sense and was well put. For that I apologize.

But I'm still out of this discussion......

[Jason]

You're only further illuminating the NEED for the law to step in here. Outright racism is not a good thing and it is not OK to go hardcore racist on anyone, but people will and DO do so and when they do someone usually gets hurt. It is not illegal to not like this person or people or that person or people for whatever the hell reason you wish, but the moment it crosses the line into prohibitive discrimination for no other apparent (or arguable) reason, then it damn well should be illegal.

My folks live in Idaho and I see rampant hardcore, ugly, and violent racism whenever I'm up there. It damn well exists and if there weren't certain laws, it would be practiced in the most atrocious way possible....

People fought hard for the right to simply not have to hang from trees. It is serious business whether you feel so or not.

I never said outright racism was a good thing, nor did I say it was good for people to go hardcore racist on others. I have no time for people who have nothing better to do than air their inflammatory racial remarks. However...I would defend the right of someone to say they don't wish to serve a certain "group" of people and I'll tell you why - let the market place deal with that individual. Bad news travels fast. A business owner who only allows, say, "white Christians" to patronize his business will be hurt much more quickly by the customer base than by any legal system.

I agree that there should be some kind of base regulatory system in place for racism when it comes to criminal cases like murder, rape, or pedophilia...but the other stuff can very easily be sorted out by the market place.

 let the market place deal with that individual

?

OK, there is no point in bothering with you anymore...... You can happily not see a single post of mine in this thread from this moment on..... I'll let the market place deal with you....

"Let the market place deal with that individual" means that the morons whose racism colors how they run their businesses will end up OUT of business because, by and large, most folks are against racism and will NOT patronize those businesses.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Indeed!

Funny that when I was a kid, the liquor store around the corner was run by this old Korean guy and he was constantly throwing people out! He'd call me "Mexican trash" (I'm Mexican/Italian/German/Irish) and he'd call black kids the N word. But he REALLY had it in for the heavy metal kids! One time, my friend's heavy metal brother was playing Galaga in the front of the store and he had just managed to turn the game over and he was yelling and cheering super loud and the old guy came up and slapped him across the face!!!

I wonder if this guy's still in business. This was a different time and I have to think if it was an old white guy, his store would have been burned down by a mob of angry villagers. Dunno what this says....

[Jason]

I would hope he isn't still in business. Korean racism is frightening. The Galaga dude should have filed assault charges against him...that's a slap in the face, sure, but still assault.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Yes, it is! I was engaged to a half Korean and her father was absolutely terrifying (he didn't approve of me, of course)! She wasn't "allowed" to have Chinese friends of Japanese friends, or Thai friends (especially Thai)! And if she insisted on a white boyfriend, he HAD to be either a doctor or a lawyer!

Funny thing about the heavy metal dude, is, yeah, he could have filed a report, and even though he was white, he was a metal head, a stoner, and a troublemaker, so he would have fallen victim to a whole different sort of discrimination....

[Jason]

Most Asian societies are like that. They're all very homogeneous societies; some more than others. I remember watching a documentary film about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea...those people are brainwashed to distrust and hate anyone who isn't a North Korean. They're even told to hate South Koreans. It's scary. I don't think that's productive at all.

[hypehat]

Title II is the problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you can't get rid of the whole thing (I doubt the whole thing would ever be repealed), Title II is a great place to start. It's more overstepping of the boundaries of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution...a big no-no. I'm not saying that people should just go hardcore racist on others, but no amount of lawmaking will end racism. However, freedom of association is the big issue here. People should have the right to associate with whom they please and should not have to provide a reason as to why they may not wish to associate with a certain individual.

If I run a convenience store and a customer causes a problem that leads to an uneasy atmosphere for the other customers, I should have the right to ask that individual to leave. However, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows for people of "special interest groups" to possibly take legal action against me because in their minds, my refusing their business might somehow equal discrimination. I am not the bigoted type; my like or dislike of people has nothing to do with race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. Title II just removes "beyond a reasonable doubt" from the equation. And considering how many people believe "all oppression nowadays is at the hands of white, heterosexual males", Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not do anything to improve civil rights but everything to muddy the waters and make people walk on too many eggshells. No thanks.

If that makes me a bigot (and no doubt I'll have a few hecklers in this thread), so be it. I prefer to associate with whom I wish.

You didn't answer my main point before going off on the Civil Rights tangent (up the top of the page), but OK.

Yes, no amount of law-making will end racism. What the law can provide is a path for those discriminated against to get compensation or justice for acts of racism perpetrated against them. I would like to think you're not against the law providing that for people. The free-market simply can't do that. Boycotting your racist supermarket isn't going to work if it's the only supermarket in town. The law needs to be there.

People did refuse business to people purely for discriminatory reasons before the Civil Rights act. There are so many things wrong with your argument that it should be repealed that I don't quite know where to begin. Clearly, they would only have a case if you, hypothetical business owner, did something like used racial epithets or got on your KKK robes or something whilst ejecting them from the shop. The law is there to ensure that. Besides, I'd also hope you'd agree that 'Whites Only' signs are a pretty fucking major step beyond 'the management reserve the right to refuse service to anyone', but sometimes I'm not so sure.


Irreverent posting aside, I'm not heckling you - but you kinda deserve it for saying 'The Civil Rights Act should be repealed' when what you mean is 'I disagree with one section of what is otherwise a decent piece of legislation that chimes with my beliefs on Life, Liberty, etc'. I mean, come on man.

[Dunderhead]

Title II is the problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you can't get rid of the whole thing (I doubt the whole thing would ever be repealed), Title II is a great place to start. It's more overstepping of the boundaries of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution...a big no-no. I'm not saying that people should just go hardcore racist on others, but no amount of lawmaking will end racism. However, freedom of association is the big issue here. People should have the right to associate with whom they please and should not have to provide a reason as to why they may not wish to associate with a certain individual.

If I run a convenience store and a customer causes a problem that leads to an uneasy atmosphere for the other customers, I should have the right to ask that individual to leave. However, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows for people of "special interest groups" to possibly take legal action against me because in their minds, my refusing their business might somehow equal discrimination. I am not the bigoted type; my like or dislike of people has nothing to do with race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. Title II just removes "beyond a reasonable doubt" from the equation. And considering how many people believe "all oppression nowadays is at the hands of white, heterosexual males", Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not do anything to improve civil rights but everything to muddy the waters and make people walk on too many eggshells. No thanks.

If that makes me a bigot (and no doubt I'll have a few hecklers in this thread), so be it. I prefer to associate with whom I wish.

You didn't answer my main point before going off on the Civil Rights tangent (up the top of the page), but OK.

Yes, no amount of law-making will end racism. What the law can provide is a path for those discriminated against to get compensation or justice for acts of racism perpetrated against them. I would like to think you're not against the law providing that for people. The free-market simply can't do that. Boycotting your racist supermarket isn't going to work if it's the only supermarket in town. The law needs to be there.

People did refuse business to people purely for discriminatory reasons before the Civil Rights act. There are so many things wrong with your argument that it should be repealed that I don't quite know where to begin. Clearly, they would only have a case if you, hypothetical business owner, did something like used racial epithets or got on your KKK robes or something whilst ejecting them from the shop. The law is there to ensure that. Besides, I'd also hope you'd agree that 'Whites Only' signs are a pretty f***ing major step beyond 'the management reserve the right to refuse service to anyone', but sometimes I'm not so sure.


Irreverent posting aside, I'm not heckling you - but you kinda deserve it for saying 'The Civil Rights Act should be repealed' when what you mean is 'I disagree with one section of what is otherwise a decent piece of legislation that chimes with my beliefs on Life, Liberty, etc'. I mean, come on man.

You are not owed any compensation because a private individual or business discriminated against you. The law doesn't need to be there, being discriminated against by a shop owner does not entitle you to anything, it is not an encroachment upon your rights. That may sound cruel to say, but we should really be focused on protecting the rights we actually have instead of trying to legislate nebulous conceptions of "fairness". You have a right to your life, liberty, and property, nothing more. Regardless of how reprehensible some store owner's ideas may be, you do not have the right to demand service from him. Doing so deprives him of his liberty, his constitutionally protected right to free association. It's as simple as that, you never, ever have to justify the way in which you exercise your rights. Racism is such a cop out in modern political discourse, racism is absolutely immaterial to the debate at hand. It doesn't matter what a person believes, he isn't required to justify himself when it comes to his rights, otherwise they wouldn't even be rights to begin with! You are not allowed to question him or his motives, anymore than a prosecutor can question an accused man's reasons for invoking the 5th amendment. You are not required to justify yourself when denying a police officer's search request. You are not required to justify yourself when you mark down Muslim on the census form.

There's nothing cruel, or wrong, or revolting about anything I've just said. Your rights are your rights, period, end of story. Your rights are written down, in black and white on a piece of paper on public display in Washington DC. You do not have any extra rights, your rights are not determined by what anyone feels is right, or what may or may not be common sense. Rights are universal and unalienable, I don't care who the person is, or what he believes, or what he says, or who he associates or conducts business with. It is absolutely, in no way shape or form, my right to deny him his unconditioned ability to determine those things for himself.

I don't care if the civil rights act was the greatest thing ever in the history of mankind, I don't care if it helped millions of people, I don't care if it was necessary, I don't care if disagreeing with it makes me evil, at the end of the day it took away the rights of certain individuals due to those individual's political and social outlook. That's tyranny, no matter how shitty those people are, no matter how evil they may be, no matter how wrong they are or how much I'm expected to hate them, it is an act of tyranny to take away their rights. There's nothing more to it.

[hypehat]

Your rights are written down?


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness iirc

But hey, I guess only certain people deserve those rights. Or racial minorities were not having their rights denied in any way whatsoever? You have to be a certain kind of person to insist that racism is fine under basic human rights, seeing as in my clearly minority view, Racism/persecution of any stripe is about denying basic human rights for people.

Get some compassion, for f***s sake. That's unbelievable. I wasn't aware committing human rights violations was in fact an inalienable human right.

[KittyKat]

Wow, there are bona fide racists on this board.  Pretty sickening.