• Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy
    154 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Omali;34010943]"They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then." From the man who opposes abortion. Ron Paul: For individual's rights, so long as those individuals are white men.[/QUOTE] No, he just believes the fetuses have the right to life. Can people please use the thousands of legitimate arguments against Ron Paul rather than the handful of shit ones that people post all over here
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34021413]??? "people shouldnt be allowed to exercise control of their private property because i think its wrong@!!!"[/QUOTE] I'm not wasting anymore time on you. You're stupid, and you're a stupid racist if you think racism and discrimination should be allowed to exist in businesses simply because of the owners beliefs. Freedom to exercise your control of your property is fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of others. Like "Get out of my store nigger." does.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34021324]Yeah, just because minorities pay for the road doesn't mean you need to let them in the restaurant. It means they are allowed on the roads.[/QUOTE] What about the tax breaks that businesses get Will minorities be exempt from paying taxes
[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;34021493]I'm not wasting anymore time on you. You're stupid, and you're a stupid racist if you think racism and discrimination should be allowed to exist in businesses simply because of the owners beliefs. Freedom to exercise your control of your property is fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of others. Like "Get out of my store nigger." does.[/QUOTE] how does not serving someone in your private business which you own and operate infringe on somebody's rights? all you've done thus far is ignore the owner's right to manage his own property while calling me names and asserting that your opinion is right and i'm wrong. just so you know i don't even agree with all this, i think it makes sense constitutionally but i feel an exception should be made anyway. maybe instead of calling me names like an idiot you should stop for a moment and consider forming a cohesive argument that doesn't consist of reminding me what your opinion on the matter is without any reasoning behind it. [editline]2nd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;34021565]What about the tax breaks that businesses get Will minorities be exempt from paying taxes[/QUOTE] what
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34021131]Here's a list of their ranks [release] Grand Imperial Wizard- this is the leader of all KKK dens across the country. He is assisted by 10 "Genii," and has been described as "autocratic." Grand Magi- He serves as a sort of "vice-president" to the organization and can act as deputy wizard. Grand Scribe-This person serves as secretary of the Klan and takes detailed accounts of the meetings. Grand Dragon of the Realm- He presides over his assigned state or "realm" with eight "Hydras" to assist him. Grand Titan of the Dominion-The Grand Titan governs a Dominion, or several counties in a state, and is assisted by six "Furies." Grand Giant of the Province- He ran each "Province," which was a County, and had 4 "Night Hawks"(messengers) as assistants. Grand Cyclops- The Grand Cyclops ran an individual Den, and was assisted by 2 Night Hawks. Lictors- These were the guards for the Den meetings. Ghouls-This name refers all members[/release] Basically they're idiots[/QUOTE] they didn't choose the names because they were D&D fans or anything stupid like that, they were meant to scare uneducated blacks who pictured, for example, a literal ghoul when people mentioned the Ghouls of the KKK. now they're just really cool names rooted in high fantasy.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34021583]how does not serving someone in your private business which you own and operate infringe on somebody's rights? all you've done thus far is ignore the owner's right to manage his own property while calling me names and asserting that your opinion is right and i'm wrong. just so you know i don't even agree with all this, i think it makes sense constitutionally but i feel an exception should be made anyway. maybe instead of calling me names like an idiot you should stop for a moment and consider forming a cohesive argument that doesn't consist of reminding me what your opinion on the matter is without any reasoning behind it.[/QUOTE] Because it infringes their right to equality due to being black/gay/jewish/female/muslim/asian/Not white.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34021617]Because it infringes their right to equality due to being black/gay/jewish/female/muslim/asian/Not white.[/QUOTE] where is the right to equality granted?
[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;34021493]I'm not wasting anymore time on you. You're stupid, and you're a stupid racist if you think racism and discrimination should be allowed to exist in businesses simply because of the owners beliefs. Freedom to exercise your control of your property is fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of others. Like "Get out of my store nigger." does.[/QUOTE] it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. they can go to another store. not saying I think we should go back to segregation but you really should be able to see the issue from both sides before you try to debate on it
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34021648]where is the right to equality granted?[/QUOTE] The Constitution that says all men are equal maybe?
[QUOTE=Sickle;34019794]'Grand Wizard'? What a fucking joke organization.[/QUOTE] They also have "Imperial Wizards".:v: Or at least they used to, anyway, during the Second Klan.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34021413]??? "people shouldnt be allowed to exercise control of their private property because i think its wrong@!!!"[/QUOTE] By not allowing me to punch you in the face you infringe my right to freedom
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34021131]Here's a list of their ranks [release] Grand Imperial Wizard- this is the leader of all KKK dens across the country. He is assisted by 10 "Genii," and has been described as "autocratic." Grand Magi- He serves as a sort of "vice-president" to the organization and can act as deputy wizard. Grand Scribe-This person serves as secretary of the Klan and takes detailed accounts of the meetings. Grand Dragon of the Realm- He presides over his assigned state or "realm" with eight "Hydras" to assist him. Grand Titan of the Dominion-The Grand Titan governs a Dominion, or several counties in a state, and is assisted by six "Furies." Grand Giant of the Province- He ran each "Province," which was a County, and had 4 "Night Hawks"(messengers) as assistants. Grand Cyclops- The Grand Cyclops ran an individual Den, and was assisted by 2 Night Hawks. Lictors- These were the guards for the Den meetings. Ghouls-This name refers all members[/release] Basically they're idiots[/QUOTE] They sound like monsters from Reisdent Evil
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34021789]By not allowing me to punch you in the face you infringe my right to freedom[/QUOTE] Nope. You've no right to assault a man. It infringes on his rights. Now, if he hit you first then maybe.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34021692]The Constitution that says all men are equal maybe?[/QUOTE] To the government, not to PRIVATE companies.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;34021924]Nope. You've no right to assault a man. It infringes on his rights. Now, if he hit you first then maybe.[/QUOTE] I don't want people to enter my property without my permission because they violate my privacy, not because they're black. If a person does not violate any of your rights while entering your property, why should you be allowed to get him out of there? Dicking around in the store, hitting the clerks or doing something to scare customers away damages the business. Having people with a face that you don't like going into the store does not. Saying "he can go to another store" is like saying that if you don't want to have crime in your neighborhood you should just move to another neighborhood.
[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;34021493]I'm not wasting anymore time on you. You're stupid, and you're a stupid racist if you think racism and discrimination should be allowed to exist in businesses simply because of the owners beliefs. Freedom to exercise your control of your property is fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of others. Like "Get out of my store nigger." does.[/QUOTE] There is no such thing as the right to "Use any store." In case you haven't looked around, shops have signs saying "we have the right to refuse service to anyone." and they do. He's not rascist, he is just defending their rights.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34021947]I don't want people to enter my property without my permission because they violate my privacy, not because they're black. If a person does not violate any of your rights while entering your property, why should you be allowed to get him out of there? Saying "he can go to another store" is like saying that if you don't want to have crime in your neighborhood you should just move to another neighborhood.[/QUOTE] because it's your property. You can do what you want with it. If that includes kicking people out, that's fine.
[QUOTE=Cone;34021824]They sound like monsters from Reisdent Evil[/QUOTE] What, no Resident Evil monsters aren't as silly and stupid And that's saying something
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34021978]There is no such thing as the right to "Use any store." In case you haven't looked around, shops have signs saying "we have the right to refuse service to anyone." and they do. He's not rascist, he is just defending their rights.[/QUOTE] What rights? The right to kick people out based on their gender? How does that help [b]anyone?[/b] What is the outcome of this all? Are the benefits of this statement better than the damages it causes? And if they are not, why the fuck should it still be kept as a value? "Right to refuse service to anyone" my ass, that shit is null and void when it's based on gender or sex or religion or any other preference or appearance. [b]If a customer isn't damaging your business directly or indirectly[/b], you should not have the right to refuse him service, and I don't give a shit if you say otherwise.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022065]What rights? The right to kick people out based on their gender? How does that help [b]anyone?[/b] What is the outcome of this all? Are the benefits of this statement better than the damages it causes? And if they are, why the fuck should it still be kept as a value? "Right to refuse service to anyone" my ass, that shit is null and void when it's based on gender or sex or religion or any other preference or appearance. If a customer isn't damaging your business directly or indirectly, you should not have the right to refuse him service, and I don't give a shit if you say otherwise.[/QUOTE] A store is private property, that you happen to sell stuff out of. Saying you can't kick someone out of your store for no good reason is like saying I can't kick someone out of my house for no good reason.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34021692]The Constitution that says all men are equal maybe?[/QUOTE] if a poetic line of the constitution means everyone has the right to not be discriminated against, that means it should be illegal for rides at amusement parks to have a height limit. it should be illegal for there to be race-specific scholarships. it should be illegal to not serve someone for not having the money to pay for your product. race is not the only determining factor in discrimination. [QUOTE=Glorbo;34022065]What rights? The right to kick people out based on their gender? How does that help [b]anyone?[/b] What is the outcome of this all? Are the benefits of this statement better than the damages it causes? "Right to refuse service to anyone" my ass, that shit is null and void when it's based on gender or sex or religion or any other preference or appearance. If a customer isn't damaging your business directly or indirectly, you should not have the right to refuse him service, and I don't give a shit if you say otherwise.[/QUOTE] grr my opinion is right and i dont give a shit if you disagree!!!!
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34022113]A store is private property, that you happen to sell stuff out of. Saying you can't kick someone out of your store for no good reason is like saying I can't kick someone out of my house for no good reason.[/QUOTE] But you [b]do[/b] have a good reason. You can kick someone out if you think he will damage your house, or if you think he will violate your privacy, or if you don't like him or you think he's a dick. In other words, you can kick people out of your house if you believe they intend to cause damage to you or the property or the residents of the property. That is why you can kick people out, and that is why there are laws about it. But a store, that is supposed to [b]serve[/b] the general public, is different than a house, since it doesn't involve any privacy (the store wants you to go in and buy stuff). Therefore, being black or muslim or a woman doesn't cause any damage to the property. That's why laws are made, to [b]prevent[/b] damage to other people. Stores denying service to people because they're black does not solve any problem to the store (since there wasn't one in the first place) but does cause damage to any person who happens to be black. Therefore, it should be illegal to deny service to someone simply based on their race. Stores denying service to people because they stole stuff from the store solves problems because it prevents damage being done to the store. TL;DR- Laws are made in order to combat damage to other people. Denying people according to race does not provide much benefits to a store and damages and denies, discriminates and damages an entire section of the population. Therefor, denying service based on race should be illegal. [QUOTE=Kopimi;34022138] grr my opinion is right and i dont give a shit if you disagree!!!![/QUOTE] Oh yeah, i'm really sorry for being angry at people saying racism should be totally legal.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022138]if a poetic line of the constitution means everyone has the right to not be discriminated against, that means it should be illegal for rides at amusement parks to have a height limit. it should be illegal for there to be race-specific scholarships. it should be illegal to not serve someone for not having the money to pay for your product. race is not the only determining factor in discrimination. grr my opinion is right and i dont give a shit if you disagree!!!![/QUOTE] " that means it should be illegal for rides at amusement parks to have a height limit." Except that's to make sure people don't get hurt for being too damn big, how the hell is that even relevant. Are you serious? "it should be illegal for there to be race-specific scholarships" "race is not the only determining factor in discrimination." That's RACE SPECIFIC THOUGH, wow, great job. " it should be illegal to not serve someone for not having the money to pay for your product" They don't have the money... they can't pay, how is that discrimination? Are you insane? You're giving the worst examples imaginable. That just makes your argument seem so weak and baseless.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022276]But you [b]do[/b] have a good reason. You can kick someone out if you think he will damage your house, or if you think he will violate your privacy, or if you don't like him or you think he's a dick. In other words, [B]you can kick people out of your house if you believe they intend to cause damage to you or the property or the residents of the property[/B]. That is why you can kick people out, and that is why there are laws about it. But a store, that is supposed to [b]serve[/b] the general public, is different than a house, since it doesn't involve any privacy (the store wants you to go in and buy stuff). Therefore, being black or muslim or a woman doesn't cause any damage to the property. That's why laws are made, to [b]prevent[/b] damage to other people. Stores denying service to people because they're black does not solve any problem to the store (since there wasn't one in the first place) but does cause damage to any person who happens to be black. Therefore, it should be illegal to deny service to someone simply based on their race. Stores denying service to people because they stole stuff from the store solves problems because it prevents damage being done to the store. TL;DR- Laws are made in order to combat damage to other people. Denying people according to race does not provide much benefits to a store and damages and denies, discriminates and damages an entire section of the population. Therefor, denying service based on race should be illegal.[/QUOTE] hahahaha dude are you at all familiar with american law i don't know how it works in israel but your house is your kingdom and if you don't want someone in your house for [B]any reason[/B] you can tell them to fuck off the rest of your post is gibberish/false. a store is private property regardless of it's intent to serve the public. i've said this in my earlier posts but you seem to have trouble grasping that a business is private property no matter the intent of the business to serve people.
You can kick someone out of your house for no good reason though. You can kick someone out of your house simply because they are black. And since when Is it a stores purpose to serve the general public? Stores are a way of making money. If you don't want to make money by serving blacks, go right ahead. And it does solve a problem. The store owner doesn't like black people in his store, and kicking him out solved that problem. I can somewhat understand saying corporations shouldn't deny service, but privately owned stores are owned completely by an individual, so he/she can do whatever they want.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022323] i don't know how it works in israel but your house is your kingdom and [b]if you don't want someone in your house for [B]any reason[/B] you can tell them to fuck off[/b] [/QUOTE] A house is not a store. If I kick a black guy out of my house because he's black I don't damage him in any way. If I kick him out of my shop, I do damage him by denying him access to goods. Why should shops and houses be treated the same way.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34022323]hahahaha dude are you at all familiar with american law i don't know how it works in israel but your house is your kingdom and if you don't want someone in your house for [B]any reason[/B] you can tell them to fuck off the rest of your post is gibberish/false. a store is private property regardless of it's intent to serve the public. i've said this in my earlier posts but you seem to have trouble grasping that a business is private property no matter the intent of the business to serve people.[/QUOTE] yeah lets just let people kick blacks out for being black it's not like they're equal or anything to anyone. I mean it's just like not having the money to pay for your product so you don't serve them right? :downs: Are you for real right now? You're stupid if you think that, honestly. You bash people endlessly for making jokes about states, but it's ok to remove people from your store based on race? Yeah, ok, sure.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34022315]" that means it should be illegal for rides at amusement parks to have a height limit." Except that's to make sure people don't get hurt for being too damn big, how the hell is that even relevant. Are you serious? "it should be illegal for there to be race-specific scholarships" "race is not the only determining factor in discrimination." That's RACE SPECIFIC THOUGH, wow, great job. " it should be illegal to not serve someone for not having the money to pay for your product" They don't have the money... they can't pay, how is that discrimination? Are you insane? You're giving the worst examples imaginable.[/QUOTE] "Except that's to make sure people don't get hurt for being too damn big, how the hell is that even relevant. Are you serious?" who are you to say who is allowed to ride? oh right, you're the business owner! "That's RACE SPECIFIC THOUGH, wow, great job." my bad, but does my mistake invalidate the point i'm making? "They don't have the money... they can't pay, how is that discrimination? Are you insane?" the price you set is an arbitrary requirement of your customer to receive service. "i'll only provide this service if you ______" what gives you the right to tell someone you won't serve them based on finance, but not based on race? is "no shirts/shoes, no service" unfair then? that's discrimination but it's still perfectly legal as far as i'm aware. i'm not saying this discrimination is right or justified, but i don't see how it infringes on anyone's rights. [editline]3rd January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;34022382]yeah lets just let people kick blacks out for being black it's not like they're equal or anything to anyone. I mean it's just like not having the money to pay for your product so you don't serve them right? :downs: Are you for real right now? You're stupid if you think that, honestly. [B]You bash people endlessly for making jokes about states, but it's ok to remove people from your store based on race?[/B] Yeah, ok, sure.[/QUOTE] um no if you actually read some of my posts you'd have read me saying that i don't support this law at all, i'm only arguing to show that there is a valid line of reasoning behind it, no matter how deplorable the outcome is.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022366]A house is not a store. If I kick a black guy out of my house because he's black I don't damage him in any way. If I kick him out of my shop, I do damage him by denying him access to goods. Why should shops and houses be treated the same way.[/QUOTE] because they are both PRIVATE PROPERTY. It doesn't matter if they have different purposes, they are both privately owned. Therefore, the owner has the right to do whatever he wants.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;34022366]A house is not a store. If I kick a black guy out of my house because he's black I don't damage him in any way. If I kick him out of my shop, I do damage him by denying him access to goods. Why should shops and houses be treated the same way.[/QUOTE] because both are private property? if you kick him out of your house you're harming him by denying him access to food and shelter, the only problem is that the food and shelter [B]is yours[/B] and you decide what to do with it. if you kick him out of your shop you aren't harming him anymore than you are if you deny him service based on how much money he has in his wallet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.