Political Thread: Non-obscene version

[Chuckinden]

Although a different twist, my nephew and his girlfriend was looking for an apartment and I called a guy I knew that had apartments for rent. He asked me if they were married and I said "No, they are engaged". He wanted to know if both would be living in the apt and I said "yes". He then told me that he doesn't rent to unmarried couples. I just said OK.

After we hung up, I told my wife that I thought that was illegal, but I don't know for sure. Personally, it doesn't bother me. If that's the way he feels, then I'm OK with it.

I have, primarily, a "live and let live" attitude.

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by UKaveman:

Now I would agree if a vendor decided not to provide services to a gay person simply for being gay. It's quite another situation altogether for a vendor to say I will not participate in the marriage ceremony of a gay couple because of my absolute belief in the sanctity of marriage and the definition of such as described by my faith. Is there no room for accommodation of someone to not be forced to violate the deeply held convictions regarding marriage???

I think this is the common sense view and it seems to me this could be resolved by amending these bills to state that it would be illegal to deny service or discriminate based on sexual orientation, however in the case of service businesses, if the service would involve participation in a religious activity or event, the owners and/or employees of the business could opt not to provide service at their own discretion.

That would seem to protect everyone.

No, it doesn't protect people who want to run their business as they see fit. People like you want the government to force people to do what they want because it is easier than maintaining your personal convictions in the face of convenience or financial loss.

You could just refuse to spend your money at any store that discriminates in any way (in a world where it was legal to do so), but then it might be tough to not shop at certain stores, so VOILA!!! just force them to do business with everyone! Easy peasy!

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Proposed changes to the Indiana Law announced.

Link

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Originally posted by TransyCat09:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by UKaveman:

Now I would agree if a vendor decided not to provide services to a gay person simply for being gay. It's quite another situation altogether for a vendor to say I will not participate in the marriage ceremony of a gay couple because of my absolute belief in the sanctity of marriage and the definition of such as described by my faith. Is there no room for accommodation of someone to not be forced to violate the deeply held convictions regarding marriage???

I think this is the common sense view and it seems to me this could be resolved by amending these bills to state that it would be illegal to deny service or discriminate based on sexual orientation, however in the case of service businesses, if the service would involve participation in a religious activity or event, the owners and/or employees of the business could opt not to provide service at their own discretion.

That would seem to protect everyone.

No, it doesn't protect people who want to run their business as they see fit. People like you want the government to force people to do what they want because it is easier than maintaining your personal convictions in the face of convenience or financial loss.

You could just refuse to spend your money at any store that discriminates in any way (in a world where it was legal to do so), but then it might be tough to not shop at certain stores, so VOILA!!! just force them to do business with everyone! Easy peasy!

Yep, he wants the gays to spend $$ at places that do not like/agree with the gay lifestyle. That just protects the business owner from outing themselves and making a huge PR/business decision.

If someone doesn't want to serve me, I'd rather know ahead of time and take my dollars elsewhere.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by TransyCat09:

No, it doesn't protect people who want to run their business as they see fit. People like you want the government to force people to do what they want because it is easier than maintaining your personal convictions in the face of convenience or financial loss.

Then tell your Congressman to take action to revoke The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 which requires those that do business in the public sector to serve all citizens.

What you think businesses might do or should do, didn't always happen before 1964 thus we have a law to protect the rights of citizens.

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by TransyCat09:

No, it doesn't protect people who want to run their business as they see fit. People like you want the government to force people to do what they want because it is easier than maintaining your personal convictions in the face of convenience or financial loss.

Then tell your Congressman to take action to revoke The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 which requires those that do business in the public sector to serve all citizens.

What you think businesses might do or should do, didn't always happen before 1964 thus we have a law to protect the rights of citizens.

I am in favor of doing just that. It will never happen, but it should.

And what do you mean, what I think businesses should do? I just said they should be able to do whatever they chose to do. If they want to be racists, then fine. I'll never spend my money there, but if that's their business plan then go for it. What businesses were doing before 1964 was actually in accordance with state LAW. The government was forcing businesses to segregate (again, Jim Crow LAWS, not Jim Crow business practices). Without the laws, would there have still be lots of private segregation? Absolutely. Would there have been more integration due to financial realities of the demographic situation? Absolutely. People think we are more tolerant today because government magically mandated it. That's BS. We evolved as a nation, culturally. Would there still be discrimination today? Yes, but much less and much easier to avoid for everyone.

You also don't have a *right* to eat a sandwich at someone's restaurant.

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by From-the-stands:

Originally posted by jamo0001:

Originally posted by qwesley:
The Salesforce and Angie's List CEOs are huge Dem party contributors, two of the largest.

That certainly explains Walmart's stance on the Arkansas version of the bill.

Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle was director of Republican Mitch Daniels re-election campaign in 2004, so I have no idea how Qwesley can make that claim with a straight face. He is a regular contributor to Republican political candidates.

I am a regular GOP contributor, huh. Did you get that info from the same place where you determined Lex Green was in a bad neighborhood? FTR, I have never contributed or campaigned for a GOP candidate. I did help a friend hand our Larry Forgy signs in the early 90s.

As for Angie's List, I was incorrect, my bad.

Personally I find the bill silly to begin with but find the tsunami of outrage just as silly. Why isn't Tim Cook this passionate about lessening the power of education unions and regulations that delay manufacturing construction....two issues his mentor Steve Jobs confronted Obama on?

Sadly, there will be a gay outrage issue per month between now and next November. BTW, HRC has never ran a campaign as a gay marriage proponent.

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by AustinTXCat:

Originally posted by Willy4UK:

Z, you back as Lord Crow?

Apparently. Incredible, indeed.

e-Clyde
Ophiuchus
Ziusudra

and perhaps another user ID somewhere in between. Good grief! What the heck is it about this board which attracts these posters like flypaper?

Crow was his original name

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Originally posted by TransyCat09:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by TransyCat09:

No, it doesn't protect people who want to run their business as they see fit. People like you want the government to force people to do what they want because it is easier than maintaining your personal convictions in the face of convenience or financial loss.

Then tell your Congressman to take action to revoke The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 which requires those that do business in the public sector to serve all citizens.

What you think businesses might do or should do, didn't always happen before 1964 thus we have a law to protect the rights of citizens.

I am in favor of doing just that. It will never happen, but it should.

And what do you mean, what I think businesses should do? I just said they should be able to do whatever they chose to do. If they want to be racists, then fine. I'll never spend my money there, but if that's their business plan then go for it. What businesses were doing before 1964 was actually in accordance with state LAW. The government was forcing businesses to segregate (again, Jim Crow LAWS, not Jim Crow business practices). Without the laws, would there have still be lots of private segregation? Absolutely. Would there have been more integration due to financial realities of the demographic situation? Absolutely. People think we are more tolerant today because government magically mandated it. That's BS. We evolved as a nation, culturally. Would there still be discrimination today? Yes, but much less and much easier to avoid for everyone.

You also don't have a *right* to eat a sandwich at someone's restaurant.

I pretty much agree. Unfortunately, I think a large percentage of our population is confused about what a "right" is. Government does not bestow rights in our society. Rights are endowed by our creator. Our Constitution is based on the idea of natural rights, not government granted rights. It's a huge difference that seems to be lost on most of our population.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by cat_in_the_hat:
I pretty much agree. Unfortunately, I think a large percentage of our population is confused about what a "right" is. Government does not bestow rights in our society. Rights are endowed by our creator. Our Constitution is based on the idea of natural rights, not government granted rights. It's a huge difference that seems to be lost on most of our population.

So you're saying that before the Civil Rights Act the creator didn't "bestow" the right of African Americans to eat at the lunch counter, stay in a local motel or drink from a whites only water fountain but when the law was passed the Federal Government "bestowed" those rights to them?

Interesting logic but I think most people would conclude that AA's had a huge problem in this country before 1964 and the "free market forces" wasn't doIng much about it.





This post was edited on 4/2 5:46 PM by Deeeefense

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by cat_in_the_hat:
I pretty much agree. Unfortunately, I think a large percentage of our population is confused about what a "right" is. Government does not bestow rights in our society. Rights are endowed by our creator. Our Constitution is based on the idea of natural rights, not government granted rights. It's a huge difference that seems to be lost on most of our population.

So you're saying that before the Civil Rights Act the creator didn't "bestow" the right of African Americans to eat at the lunch counter, stay in a local motel or drink from a whites only water fountain but when the law was passed the Federal Government "bestowed" those rights to them?

Interesting logic but I think most people would conclude that AA's had a huge problem in this country before 1964 and the "free market forces" wasn't do much about it.

See, Dee, this is where we run into problems. You can't conceptualize what a "right" is. It's not that the right to eat a lunch counter wasn't bestowed upon African Americans. It's that no one, of any color or creed, has a right to eat a lunch counter. It is a privilege granted to you by the owner of the establishment (I am speaking philosophically, and not legally. So don't bring up the CRA, because I am talking about what SHOULD happen, not what DOES). It's no different than the privilege people grant you to step foot in their home. They aren't bestowing a right on you that didn't previously exist, they are simply granting temporary permission. See the difference? The counter owner is providing you a service. If someone forces him to provide services he does not want to, he is no longer working under his own free will. No different than you being conscripted to work at a factory by force.

Also, you completely ignored the point about Jim Crow LAWS being government force, not free market forces. In fact, the marginal gains made by African Americans prior to the Civil Rights movement were almost entirely in the private sector, due to the nature of economics.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

where this libertarian nonsense fails is when you get to communities and small towns that would love to keep blacks, gays, etc out of their businesses/communities. You allow this stuff and there's no doubt that places in Mississippi and Alabama would love to bring back Jim Crowe. You may think that businesses care more about the $$ but obviously some don't.

So yes, unfortunately, you have to have Federal laws enacted to protect minorities because no business is necessarily going to give people their god given rights to equality. I guess we've learned nothing or you used a Fox News approved history book.

We've had free markets for centuries and that didn't stop slavery. We've had the Constitution and bill of rights for centuries and that didn't stop slavery.

 

[UKserialkiller]

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
where this libertarian nonsense fails is when you get to communities and small towns that would love to keep blacks, gays, etc out of their businesses/communities.

Now you're getting looney. Has anyone went to the Supreme Court about being gay and being denied services? As Transy, maybe said there are 23 states that have similar laws like this. Even Kentucky.
Someone is either gonna try to take this to the Supreme Court (not even sure if this applicable) or there will be a major bad publicity that could affect Indiana's economy. If it is damaged enough, Indiana will have to amend the bill. So, the free market wins out. The "gays" win. You should be happy. I don't like bigots either, but let the market determine if Indiana needs to amend this bill.

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
where this libertarian nonsense fails is when you get to communities and small towns that would love to keep blacks, gays, etc out of their businesses/communities. You allow this stuff and there's no doubt that places in Mississippi and Alabama would love to bring back Jim Crowe. You may think that businesses care more about the $$ but obviously some don't.

So yes, unfortunately, you have to have Federal laws enacted to protect minorities because no business is necessarily going to give people their god given rights to equality. I guess we've learned nothing or you used a Fox News approved history book.

We've had free markets for centuries and that didn't stop slavery. We've had the Constitution and bill of rights for centuries and that didn't stop slavery.

Slavery was enforced by law. Jim Crow was, for the third time, a series of laws. These are laws, by definition, enforced by government. Not the free market; again. Your contention that businesses cared more about being racist than money is also false. They didn't have to worry about money because there was no alternative for African Americans. It was illegal to open up a non segregated restaurant, so the business owners got to be racist and still keep their African American customers. There was no free market. What would happen in random town Mississippi that's 45% African American in 2015 if someone opened a segregated restaurant? What would happen when someone else opened an integrated one and stole over half their business? You are right, the business owner could choose to be racist over making money, but they would either go out of business or they would be entirely servicing racist patrons that would force them to be smaller and smaller. Learn economics.

Your Fox News jab is particularly hilarious considering you have no idea how Jim Crow worked. You are literally on a high school level of understanding.

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
god given rights to equality.

Finally, you don't have a right to equality; in society anyway. You have a right to be treated equitably by the government, but no one has a right to be treated equally by other individuals. Fundamental misunderstanding (or simply not knowing in the first place) of the nature of rights.

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Obama uses diplomacy to get Iran to give up their nuclear bomb ambitions...

This guy continues to kick butt.

 

[wkycatfan_rivals376690]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:
Obama uses diplomacy to get Iran to give up their nuclear bomb ambitions...

This guy continues to kick butt.

I guess it depends on who you think is lying. Personally, I doubt Iran is going to stop pursuing their nuclear program.


http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-accuses-u-s-of-lying-about-new-nuke-agreement/

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

TransyCat lives in a fantasy world. Like most libertarians.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
where this libertarian nonsense fails is when you get to communities and small towns that would love to keep blacks, gays, etc out of their businesses/communities. You allow this stuff and there's no doubt that places in Mississippi and Alabama would love to bring back Jim Crowe. You may think that businesses care more about the $$ but obviously some don't.

So yes, unfortunately, you have to have Federal laws enacted to protect minorities because no business is necessarily going to give people their god given rights to equality. I guess we've learned nothing or you used a Fox News approved history book.

We've had free markets for centuries and that didn't stop slavery. We've had the Constitution and bill of rights for centuries and that didn't stop slavery.

You realize that slavery and Jim Crowe were institutionalized by government don't you. Government didn't come to the rescue. It was responsible. Unfortunately, the Constitution is only as good as the people we elect to enforce it.

No one has a "God given right to equality". You have a right to be treated equally by government, but you have no such right when it comes to your fellow man.

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
TransyCat lives in a fantasy world. Like most libertarians.

You are the living embodiment of someone who grew up around Republican Christians and thinks by the very nature of being liberal, you are smarter than everyone you encounter. You also think everyone that disagrees with you is a Republican, Fox News watching, bible thumper. Mostly because you are, in fact, not very smart at all. All you do on this forum is regurgitate talking points from the liberal equivalent of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, except a lot gets lost between the TV screen, your brain, and fingertips (which is odd, since there isn't much in the way).

Do you read books about politics? Economics? History? I don't mean "popular" books, but real works of scholarship that might help you learn things. Because you really just sound like an average guy at the bar talking politics. Nothing wrong with that, just don't try to talk down to people who clearly are better educated on the subject than you. Maybe another Young Turks youtube video or Gawker article will really crank up your knowledge level a bit

 

[UKserialkiller]

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
TransyCat lives in a fantasy world. Like most libertarians.

Lol I love the mindset of Liberals about Libertarians. It's usually misguided and rigid.

 

[KyFaninNC]

Originally posted by Willy4UK:

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
TransyCat lives in a fantasy world. Like most libertarians.

Lol I love the mindset of Liberals about Libertarians. It's usually misguided and rigid.

How is that any different in their mindset about anything? They have proven time and again they can NOT use one ounce of independent thinking or analyze anything for themselves . They only see the world the way the Washington Liberals and TV Liberals tell them to see it. In other words they are no better than the right wing nuts they like to bash so often.

 

[UKserialkiller]

Originally posted by KyFaninNC:

How is that any different in their mindset about anything? They have proven time and again they can NOT use one ounce of independent thinking or analyze anything for themselves . They only see the world the way the Washington Liberals and TV Liberals tell them to see it. In other words they are no better than the right wing nuts they like to bash so often.

I agree. It's a zoo up there

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Transy wins. Rhonda Rousey 15 second type win..

 

[qwesley]

Iran Deal Falls Far Short of Obama's Goals - Washington Post

Other than perhaps Slate, DailyKos, etc pretty much nobody sees this as a "kick butt" deal...his friends at WaPo are less than enthused:



By Editorial Board April 2 at 6:11 PM[/I]

THE "KEY parameters" for an agreement on Iran's nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran's nuclear facilities - including the Fordow center buried under a mountain - will be closed. Not one of the country's 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran's existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be "reduced" but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran's nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state[/I].
This post was edited on 4/3 11:32 AM by qwesley

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

It's a laughable deal. We probably lost our best middle east ally. Iran gets to keep pursuing nuclear status; giving up nothing.

What do we get? A promise they won't do anything bad. Clearly not worth what we lost.

Iran got everything they wanted. We got nothing we wanted, and we lost an ally. Boy that Kerry/Obama...they're shrewd negotiators.

 

[wkycatfan_rivals376690]

I sometimes wonder if Obama really believes that Israel should be there. In the beginning of his administration, he tried to convince Netanyahu that he should go back to 1967 borders. He seems to have been enabling the surrounding arab countries for his entire administration.

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
It's a laughable deal. We probably lost our best middle east ally. Iran gets to keep pursuing nuclear status; giving up nothing.

What do we get? A promise they won't do anything bad. Clearly not worth what we lost.

Iran got everything they wanted. We got nothing we wanted, and we lost an ally. Boy that Kerry/Obama...they're shrewd negotiators.

How so?

We aren't going to war for Israel...so everyone in the world knew that was off the table.
The Isrealis were not going to attack on their own and risk the entire world's wrath. So that is off the table.
Increased scantions hasn't stopped the Iranians from developing the technology. So that is working how effectively?

It's a great deal...we were not going to get everything we wanted and that's that. No deal was going to work for Bibi, so he has marginalized himself to the world and most of the US now in the process...we all know he is full of ****.

Our Senate and House will likely deep six this deal and we will lose the other world powers in the process...so Iran will likely get off from any sanctions and not limiting their nuclear capabilites in the end.

Just like Obamacare, the only thing the right can do is complain and b1tch with nothing to show at the end of the day.

I think Obama is going to get another Nobel Peace Prize at the end of the day.

Once again, we were never going to go to war with Iran over their desire to get nukes...that's the reality. And remember, Iranian nuke capabilities flourished under the watchful eye of GWB.




This post was edited on 4/3 10:48 PM by AlbanyWildCat

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

I agree we were never using force. Everyone knew that. And that's why we had no negotiating power.

Negotiations are about compromise. Meeting in the middle. Here one side got everything they want. All they had to do was promise to behave. Something they haven't done in decades, maybe centuries.

Again, this deal is laughable for anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity. Only the biggest Obama disciples think it's a good idea to give Iran nuclear missiles and hope they keep their word; all while alienating our main ally.

The solution didn't even require force or threat of force. All we had to be willing to do was stop holding back Israel from taking care of the problem. We're so obviously spineless, we couldn't even threaten that.

 

[Deeeefense]

This link dumbs-down what's in the deal. So far Democrats are saying the deal is great and we got more than what was expected. Republicans are saying the deal is bad and we gave away everything and got nothing. The Iranians who are mostly pro-western are celebrating the deal and want closer ties to the US, but the Supreme Leader of Iran said "We gave up a race-ready horse and we got in return a broken bridle."

Add it all up and it's probably a fair deal, and better than walking away. Russia and China would not likely to be inclined to ratchet up sanctions on Iran if we walked away and sanctions would be ineffective without all parties participating. Even if sanctions were increased no one truly believes that would halt Iran's nuclear program.

I'll take this deal as opposed to the third option - a military attack which would have sever blow back and financial consequences for the US.



Iran Nuclear Deal - Plain English Version

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
It's a laughable deal. We probably lost our best middle east ally. Iran gets to keep pursuing nuclear status; giving up nothing.

What do we get? A promise they won't do anything bad. Clearly not worth what we lost.

Iran got everything they wanted. We got nothing we wanted, and we lost an ally. Boy that Kerry/Obama...they're shrewd negotiators.

I don't know anything about the "deal", so I can't say whether it's good or not, but I guaran-damn-tee you that we have not lost our "best middle east ally".

Israel knows who butters their bread. It is nothing but a U.S. propped up, welfare state.

 

[krazykats]

This may sound stupid, but why not become allies with Iran?

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by krazykats:
This may sound stupid, but why not become allies with Iran?

Their outward hatred of Israel, funding Hezbollah, and funding of Shia militias in Iraq. Now, all of the Sunni states in the ME do virtually the same thing, but they aren't quite as open about it. I honestly believe it's as simple as that. Iran says they want destroy Israel. Saudi Arabia wants to, they just don't make official proclamations about it.

I also think they aren't as Western as many think. They are an educated people and the youth certainly want some kind of openness with the West, but the still execute homosexuals and adulterers and have a secret police. Then there is the fact that they are Shia and a much smaller portion of the overall Muslim population. The US probably sees siding with some less savory Sunni states as a bigger net gain than winning favor with, in a vacuum, a better ally. Of course you could get into the Cold War allegiances as well

Overall if it was as simple as choosing to be allies with Saudi Arabia or Iran, Iran would be the better partner, but the other stuff "forces" us to go with the Arabs

This post was edited on 4/4 4:05 PM by TransyCat09

 

[krazykats]

I knew about the Cold War stuff but I don't follow politics too close to be versed enough to debate it. That said if a world war broke out, Id rather have the people on my side that most help to win and to me Iran is that country(clearly that is looking past the Chinese) that would be best to pair up with.

I give Obama no credit for anything smart at this point, but I will acknowledge that he isnt as bad as people thought. That said he is almost accidentally making Iran a possible future ally it seems.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by krazykats:
This may sound stupid, but why not become allies with Iran?

Because the Saudis hate them and they have more oil than Iran does.

 

[Deeeefense]

The general consensus seems to be that it isn't perfect but it's the best option available and has good potential of slowing or preventing Iran from going nuclear.

Iran Nuclear Deal - Experts Speak Out

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

Please someone remind me how many Iranians flew those planes into the towers.
We suppose to be a nation that is a bastion for democracy yet we have supported tyranny of dictators and monarchs in the ME for years.


This post was edited on 4/5 10:56 AM by Free_Salato_Blue

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
The general consensus seems to be that it isn't perfect but it's the best option available and has good potential of slowing or preventing Iran from going nuclear.

Mothr Jones? You can't be serious.

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
I agree we were never using force. Everyone knew that. And that's why we had no negotiating power.

Negotiations are about compromise. Meeting in the middle. Here one side got everything they want. All they had to do was promise to behave. Something they haven't done in decades, maybe centuries.

Again, this deal is laughable for anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity. Only the biggest Obama disciples think it's a good idea to give Iran nuclear missiles and hope they keep their word; all while alienating our main ally.

The solution didn't even require force or threat of force. All we had to be willing to do was stop holding back Israel from taking care of the problem. We're so obviously spineless, we couldn't even threaten that.

So why didn't GWB give the green light if that is all that is needed? What was holding GWB back?

Isreal dodn't have the capabilities to kill the Iranian nuclear threat...they could attack tomorrow and Iran would have developed their Nuke bomb within months afterward and looking for revenge.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

David Corn. David Corn was cited as a source here. We now live in a world where David Corn has been cited as a source on the Rivals.