Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

smitty_one_each (243267)

smitty_one_each
  (email not shown publicly)
http://www.emacs ... ChristopherSmith
Middle aged would-be F/OSS hacker. Emacs, Python, C++ preferred. Gentoo by choice, Windows in chains.

Journal of smitty_one_each (243267)

We should rebel against trivial politics

[ #193300 ]
Wednesday January 16 2008, @12:03AM
User Journal
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/15/video-its-tough-to-be-a-white-man-at-the-democrat-debate/
It's freaking insulting. Voters should systematically attack this pettifoggery from both parties.

List all Journal entries
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

We should rebel against trivial politics 31 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
    • The only problem with Edwards is that he is just slightly less hateful and vile than every other candidate - D or R - in the running.

      All the right folks hate him, at least. And he isn't an Oreo (Dem on the outside Rep on the inside), like Obamanation and Cthillary.

      • The only problem with Edwards is that he is just slightly less hateful and vile than every other candidate - D or R - in the running.
        I am not sure how wanting to take away all of our rights is LESS vile, but um, OK.
        • What are these rights you speak of? These were revoked in PATRIOT I, PATRIOT II and the damning Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 [govtrack.us].

          • What are these rights you speak of? These were revoked in PATRIOT I, PATRIOT II and the damning Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 [govtrack.us].

            And how can I forget that masterpiece, the Military Commissions Act of 2006? [wikipedia.org]

            Please enumerate which rights each of those "revoked." I won't hold my breath. :-)

            But that's beside the point. Edwards denies that we have right to property, to person, to make choices for ourselves about our lives. That's not to say some Republicans aren't as bad, along the same or different vectors. But we are talking about specific candidates here. (Besides, Edwards voted for the Patriot Act anyway.)

          • You took the words right out of my mouth. I almost posted the same question. He's talking about his right to reimpose Jim Crow regs in his business and be a polluter and to imprison people without just cause or any reason at all, then deny them medical care. You know, all the rights a neo-libertarian craves. Denials and distortions to arrive in 3,2,1...
            • I'm not replying to him anymore. Anytime I do, I am mysteriously down-modded all over the place...
              • Aaaaah, points schmoints... Have a little fun. Take a poke at the troll.

                "C'mon, Squeeze the wheeze. Many people like to"

            • You took the words right out of my mouth. I almost posted the same question. He's talking about his right to reimpose Jim Crow regs in his business and be a polluter and to imprison people without just cause or any reason at all, then deny them medical care. You know, all the rights a neo-libertarian craves.

              None of that is true.

              First, "Jim Crow" refers to laws restricting access to blacks. There is not a single example of such a law that I would support.

              I would support private businesses -- not now, but in the future -- being able to discriminate against anyone, for any reason. You see, we are supposed to have freedom of association in the U.S. However, it is not rational to call these "Jim Crow" policies, which are different.

              Second, everyone supports the right to pollute. That's a red herring. The only

              • I would support private businesses -- not now, but in the future -- being able to discriminate against anyone, for any reason. You see, we are supposed to have freedom of association in the U.S. However, it is not rational to call these "Jim Crow" policies, which are different.

                :-) Well, hot bloody damn! That's probably the closest I'll ever get to an admission that you are what we say you are. But hell, I'll take it. Thanks! Like the space shuttle, countdown was delayed, but we got a launch. You're the bes

                • I would support private businesses -- not now, but in the future -- being able to discriminate against anyone, for any reason. You see, we are supposed to have freedom of association in the U.S. However, it is not rational to call these "Jim Crow" policies, which are different.

                  :-) Well, hot bloody damn! That's probably the closest I'll ever get to an admission that you are what we say you are.

                  So you are saying you do not believe we should have freedom of association?

                  Sigh. Are there any essential liberties you DO believe in?

                  • So you are saying you do not believe we should have freedom of association?

                    No

                    Sigh. Are there any essential liberties you DO believe in?

                    *sigh* Yes

                    • So you are saying you do not believe we should have freedom of association?

                      No

                      My mistake. I should not have phrased that as a question. Your previous response makes it clear: you are saying you do not believe we should have freedom of association.

                      If you did, then you would believe that a business owner should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason. That is what freedom of association IS.

                      But because you -- like me -- dislike discrimination based on certain characteristics, you -- unlike me -- believe that it should be outlawed.

                      It's typical liberalism: unprincipled a

                    • okay

                      Oops, my mistake. I should rephrase that to say, you're a moron who intentionally misrepresents anything you disagree with. Listen, PMF is back. You should have a little heart to heart with him. I believe he has what you really need.... if you get my drift. Maybe I'll take sloppy seconds after you wash your mouth out.

                      Peace

                      Wow! Did I actually say that?!

                    • you're a moron who intentionally misrepresents anything you disagree with
                      I misrepresented nothing. You believe we should not be allowed to discriminate in our own place of business. That NECESSARILY means you do not believe in freedom of association. There's no two ways about it.
                    • First, I apologize to all the morons out there for associating you with them, as you are far beneath them, at least they have an excuse for being so. What's yours for being so dumb, arrogant, etc etc etc??

                      Second, a business that is open to the public is open to all the public, no discrimination allowed. A rule as simple as stopping for a red light, or no drunk driving. A social contract worthy of the name. Feel free to twist, mutilate, and distort that as you see fit. I'm sure you're up for the task, as mas

                    • Second, a business that is open to the public is open to all the public, no discrimination allowed.
                      Exactly, like I said. You do not believe in freedom of association. I don't know why you don't understand this fact.
                    • I don't know why you don't understand this fact.

                      That's because you are dumb as dirt, and you are not stating any facts. I wouldn't expect you to understand any rational thought that runs contrary to what you are conditioned to believe. That's why people like you are called "reactionary", to put it nicely. You don't think. You only react, based on how you were programmed to. You are an unreasonable, stubborn ass who likes to have people talk dirty to you. I can't do it without sounding like an imitator of th

                    • you are not stating any facts
                      False. You said that we should not have freedom of association. That's a fact.
                    • I said you are a bigot and a chicken hawk, and now I can add slanderer. THAT'S a fact.

                    • I said you are a bigot and a chicken hawk
                      Yes. Neither one of which is true; neither one of which can you back up.

                      and now I can add slanderer. THAT'S a fact.
                      Nope. That's blatantly false on its face. Even if I were defaming you, it would be libel, not slander. But it is not defamation, because it is true. It is not only true, it is provably true. It is not only provably true, it is necessarily, definitionally, true.
                    • I'm sorry to get on this at such a late stage of the discussion, but it seems like you're conceiving of freedom of association as also including freedom of nonassociation, and I don't really see that as being the case. Freedom to gather with like-minded people and discuss ideas that government might find threatening and otherwise seek to suppress doesnt really say to me that you should also be allowed to refuse service for any reason in a private business. I mean, in an ideal world, we wouldnt need laws

                    • I'm sorry to get on this at such a late stage of the discussion, but it seems like you're conceiving of freedom of association as also including freedom of nonassociation

                      Yes, absolutely.

                      and I don't really see that as being the case

                      I see it as necessarily the case. The two are the same. This is why the Supreme Court recently ruled that you can't force teachers to contribute money to a union that is to be used for political donations, because the freedom of association includes a freedom of nonassociation. They are just two ways of looking at the same thing.

                      Freedom to gather with like-minded people and discuss ideas that government might find threatening and otherwise seek to suppress doesnt really say to me that you should also be allowed to refuse service for any reason in a private business

                      You are far too limiting in your interpretation of the freedom of association. While this was the main point, it is freedom of association in ALL things.

                      How a

                    • Freedom to gather with like-minded people and discuss ideas that government might find threatening and otherwise seek to suppress doesnt really say to me that you should also be allowed to refuse service for any reason in a private business.

                      And you would be correct in that assessment. A business that is open to the public is not private during stated business hours. The common area becomes "public" property during that time, subject to public regulations, which would include the bill of rights, for instance
        • And how can I forget that masterpiece, the Military Commissions Act of 2006? [wikipedia.org]

          I am - of course - familiar with the original Russian language of this opus, however this loses almost nothing in it's English translation!
      • Dem on the outside Rep on the inside

        Makes for a vanilla wafer more than a Oreo.
      • I see you have been seduced by "Cthillary".
        Aren't one-word editorials the best?
      • I'm a fairly conservative person, but have for some time been disghusted with both parties, so keep that in mind.

        My real problem with Edwards is how he made his millions. I percieve him as nothing but an ambulance chaser taking advantage of a weak tort system for his own personal gain. Somehow in his mind that makes him qualified to run our country.

        Sadly, given our current state of politics, that's probably true.
        • It's clear that the likes of George Soros have a disproportionate grip on the hand of the Democratic Party.
          Unsure who the Republican version of Soros is.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.