Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://steveaudio.blogspot.com/2005/09/sweet-home-alabama.html


A damn shame  :rant:

Wow, this is unreal. I mean...really.

I'll make sure not to give them any of my money anymore.

EDIT: I'm suprised none of our regulars haven't come forward to condone this yet.......

Wow, how sad is that?

I thought those were gone when South Africa decided it wasn't a good idea after all.




/jarmo

The south will always be the same. I've lived in S.C four years, and although racism is not as extreme as this, it'll never change.

I can't beleive something like this still goes on in the 21st century.  :no:

I can't believe what I just read! And that people would be that stupid and ignorant to not realise it wouldn't take long for legal action!

That's Disgusting...  :no:. What's the use of legal action? Peoples attitudes never change...

I realise and agree.. but its just so naive and dumb to think they could get away with this.

Guess I won't be buying any Tyson products anymore.

Assholes, what a disgrace. I hope the bastards that run that company are boycotted, put out of business and bankrupt.

Bitches. Just a bunch of racist bitches.

unbelievable ???

I think we should wait until we hear both sides of the story before we jump to any conclusions about people. ?As we have seen in the GN'R lawsuits it's pretty normal for one side to make pretty outrageous allegations to further their case.

The issue seems to be that some employees had a private bathroom that was locked and only they had a key. ?Why would have have put up a "whites only" sign if the door was locked and no one else could get in anyway? ?As for some employees setting up a private break room, I've seen this kind of thing happen before in a business I worked at a while ago. ?There was a fridge that everyone used to keep their lunch in and there was a serious problem with food being stolen so some employees got their money together and bought a small fridge and kept it locked and just for themselves.

It's not unusual for cliques to form at large businesses and for these people to spend their time together, it's not a sign of racism.

I don't know what the truth is in this. ?Maybe there was bigotry and if there was then they deserve to pay or maybe it's the cracker barrel case and it's greedy lawyers trying to screw a some money out of a big business.

Best wait to get the entire story on slavery too before making an assumptions....

So if you're going to believe on side of a lawsuit no doubt you think Axl is a lying money grabbing scumbag?

Huh?

I believe that in Kentucky this kind of racist shit happens, yes.

Ever stopped for gas in central Florida? Racist shirts, hats, bumper stickers for sale etc. Same stupid ass rednecks breeding  and having more stupid racist rednecks that think the same way.

No big business would tolerate this.  Even if they thought this way they wouldn't want the legal liability in a lawsuit. 

There is a big difference between what goes on in a gas station in the butt crack of nowhere and in a major business.  If you've ever working for a major company you'll know they're very politically correct in order to cover their asses.

All kinds of shit happens, I do not doubt it for a minute. If enough people went to the trouble to get a lawyer.....you think they ALL are lying here?

Kitano, only a racist or racist sympathizer would want to hear both side of this arguement.  It's wrong no matter how you look at it.

If the white hood fits......

An allegation has been made and I would like to hear the response.  You are onbviously lacking in critical thinking skills, you believe whatever you're told.  It's not going to be a help to you in your life.

If what they say happened is true then they have been gravely wronged.  I'd like to see some proof outside of an unsubstantiated allegation before i condemn anyone.

You're a waste of my time.

For the record my mother is Puerto Rican and my father is Jewish, I'm not exactly the white hood wearing type.

My fathers family suffered greatly because people believed everything they were told and didn't question.  All i'm doing in this thread is asking questions.

How can you not want to here both sides of an allegation in a lawsuit?? You know how many frilvolous suits get filed nowadays?? How can you guys call Kitano a racists for wanting to hear both sides, but then saying if it is true that it was horrible?

This coming from someone from Purdue, one of most prestigious universities in the world. :hihi:? Although I am still yet to figure out how Purdue is one of the most prestigious universities in the world when it is number 3 in the small state of Indiana.

As far as this article goes, guilty until proven innocent.  :P

Wow, news to me, I didn't realize that Jews and Puerto Ricans were immune to being racist.  Why would I want to hear the other side of this arguement?  If it were some employee's versoin of a joke and the company did little to stop it then they are liable.  If the company did this by some oversight, it's their fault.  There is no excuse for this, none.

Berkley, you show your ignorance in your post.  I am not saying that all Purdue programs are in the elite but several are.  IU?   Maybe better recognized because of their hillbilly icon, Bob Knight.  Notre Dame?  I am not talking about football, it's academics, and even if it were football we kicked their asses last year.   When Nano technology takes root you all will be thanking the Boilers.  If you don't know, now ya know.

He made a KKK reference towards me.  I just brought up my parents to show how offensive and inaccuarate his insult was.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I have to agree with Kitano. 

The lawsuit ALLEGES that there was a whites only sign and a padlock.  It hasn't been proven.  Maybe they have evidence, like photos etc, but unless I'm mistaken, that information isn't available to anyone on this board. 

As a white supervisor of quite a few black people, I've had the term "racist" hurled at me more than once.  But just because someone says it, doesn't make it true. 

You have 12 people claiming there was a sign up and a locked door to keep them out. The lawyers involved are not ambulance chasers, they are a well respected group:

"The Lawyers? Committee is an over forty-year old nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights legal organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to provide legal services to address racial discrimination. "

With that in mind, I am more apt to believe this happened. I may be too hard on Kitano, but I think 12 people making this claim and the type of legal group that is involved point to one thing.

Saying "Big business wouldn't let this happen" is not living in reality. Big business doesn't give a ratt's ass about anybody and have proven that over and over. Walmart has locked their employees inside the store to get them to work off the clock. Big companies take out life insurance policies on their older workers to collect when they die and then use it as a tax write off.

So.... If some factory manager is a redneck hick who hates blacks and thinks nobody is going to stand up for themselves, I wouldn't doubt for a second he'd do this.

I think its entirely possible, and even likely that it happened.  But I also think its important to keep your mind open to the idea that these people MIGHT be making it up. 

I don't think anyone would make up such a serious charge, especially since it's something that can be substantiated.

A guy I used to work with was accused of rape by a chick who wanted to get money from him.  It really is sad but people will lie about anything if there is a chance of getting money.

If it is true then they deserve whatever money they get.

#1. Racist is often inappropriately used as an insult. I like white women and French food more than the rest. There's nothing wrong with this. I don't care what people think about it.

#2. This country is going to hell if we can't grow thicker skin and accept the natural order of things. Groups have conflicts between each other; this is normal. Get over it. Lawsuits are expensive and wasteful. It's even possible the whole event is fabricated or blown out of proportion for the $uit.

#3. Business owners have sovereignty over the workers. If the workers don't like it, they can leave or be escorted out. It's their choice.

 If this indeed happened it is an absolute embarassment that this could still happen in America.

On the flip side....if this has been fabricated, playing the race card can get you a long way.

I believe Walk must be a computer program that just spits out random posts per thread......

No rational human would type anything like that.....

I don't think this legal organization would fetter itself with a lawsuit that was unfounded.  Sure... lawyers do  impose frivolous lawsuits all the time... However this is a NONPROFIT legal organization, in other words, they get nothing out of putting the squeeze on Tyson except for the feeling of knowing they're exposing racism and helping the victims of that racism.


This is a little different than stating one's personal preferences... This is unfairly denying one group of employees a benefit that is available to another group based only on skin color.  I'm not excusing your bigotry, but I am suggesting that this is just a little more extreme.

The employer makes the rules, not the employee. The employees don't tell the employer what's fair and what isn't. It's their duty to obey and accept their treatment.

Race is far, far more than "skin color", by the way.

And their "treatment" is simply inhumane. I don't know about the US, but thankfully in Australia we have laws and anti discriminations acts, so employees don't have to put up with that crap. Employers make the rules sure, but the line is drawn when the rules involve discrimination on the base of race. That is simply disgraceful.

(http://tinypic.com/dy59vt.jpg)

Look at the bigger picture. It's the government telling a free market business what's good for it. Race isn't the issue here. The issue is respect for a private business handling private matters how it wants to and government getting in the way of it. If the workers can't agree with the employer, they can just leave; that's it. However, they're using the government's clout to impose their views. This isn't what government is designed for. Somewhere here, tax dollars are being wasted...

No it is not you idiot.

It is the government upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was handed down by the Supreme Court.



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. Labor Organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

How the hell would you feel if you were working for a black employer in a business with black employees in majority and you were not allowed use the same toilet facilities and canteen because you had white skin? That treatment is completely unacceptable and should not be inflicted on/accepted by any human being. I think human life comes before "what's good for the company".

You mean I could use different facilities than the black employees?

I fail to see the downside.

Where are these bigot assholes coming from?  ::)

JOKE

NOUN:

Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
A mischievous trick; a prank.
An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
Informal
Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.


Lighten up you guilty white liberal.   :P

 Joke?  . . .   Oh, hilarious   :confused: 

LOL!? It was wasn't it?

I got lots more.

(http://www.twinsenland.com/pics/funny/bwahaha.jpg)

The racist backpedals.............

Dick?head Pronunciation (dkhd)

n. Vulgar Slang

An inept, foolish, or contemptible person.

Please.

So if anyone makes a racist joke they are automatically a racist?

Let's see now, where did I put my hood?

http://www.alldumb.com/item/13968

... well why not just spare us, sweetie? . . . ? ?::) ?

I said dickhead too didn't I?

It's also true that "assult guns" are banned in many states. Just because it's what the government says doesn't make it right. Natural law > man's law. There are hundreds of stupid laws on the books that mess up what a free market would normally solve. Laws like this, along with the 14th and 16th amendments, make me wonder if America really died in 1865...

Holy War, don't even bother fighting with SLC's pseudoinsults. He's always like this.

Haha, you are changing your argument now. You said :

"The issue is respect for a private business handling private matters how it wants to and government getting in the way of it."

Which I corrected because the issue is a civil rights issue. So as usual, you are wrong.

The bible was written by man, basically a book of laws, and you quote that all day long. When the government doesn't back up your narrow minded racist views you dismiss it and call them " stupid laws".

Imagine that. Using one book of rules/laws to be an asshole and when another group of laws tell you it's inhumane and against the law to be one (an asshole), you denounce them. Big surprise!

"Civil rights" is a euphemism for government control of private business. It is an issue because it takes away freedom from businesses. Businesses shouldn't have to treat everyone equally if they don't want to. They'll fail in the market if what they're doing is wrong. But the government doesn't like the natural order of things; it wants control and power.


God wrote the Bible and it's natural law. Governments make human laws that sometimes tend to defy this natural order. There's a huge difference there.


Not all laws are equal. I don't think anyone gives a hoot about UN laws, even the UN!  ;)

"Civil rights" is a euphemism for government control of private business. It is an issue because it takes away freedom from businesses. Businesses shouldn't have to treat everyone equally if they don't want to. They'll fail in the market if what they're doing is wrong. But the government doesn't like the natural order of things; it wants control and power.

Sure it is...... ::)

God wrote the Bible and it's natural law. Governments make human laws that sometimes tend to defy this natural order. There's a huge difference there.

 :hihi:

Ok dude, whatever you say.

You can frame it anyway you want, but you are still a racist asshole.  ;D

haha fuckin hilarious  ::) assholes

So it's ok to have a store for "whites only"?

There's nothing wrong with choosing customers by their skin color?


I really should start having a policy of banning people based on how stupid I find their post whether or not they break any rules.

I should have that freedom right?



/jarmo

You could tell them it would just be the "natural order" of things......

What do you feel about the 19th ammendment? 


god wrote the bible?  So... let me get this straight... god wrote the collection of books and then what?  Did he cast it to earth, and then said "Hey, I wrote this, check it out"?

It truly saddens me that there are people who still think it's ok to treat others differently based on race.   It's very ignorant to do so, ultimately we all belong to the same race, the human race, and we should treat others accordingly.
         

Stores still have the right to keep people out without shirts or people with pets. Also, minorities are usually not allowed into white power concerts, since they're either suicidal, lawsuit hunting, or absolutely stupid. It's to protect their own safety. The free market works here. It shows that profit is not always the goal of private businesses.


It's your web site, so yeah.

Women, unfortunately, tend to vote more liberally than men. However, the 19th amendment has allowed intelligent women like Ayn Rand and Ann Coulter to express themselves. My views on this one are mixed.


Yeah. That's basic Christian doctrine.


If I were an employer, I would hire the best employees, regardless of race. However, I don't care about competitors who would do otherwise. That's their business. I don't look at racism as either good or bad, it's something that can be inutil or appropriate for different cultures. Open minded, you know?

So you  believe that the only people who should have the right to vote are the ones who agree with you?  That's very open minded of you.  Doesn't sound very American though, does it?  The people have the right to be heard, but only certain people, when they are saying the right thing.

Reminds me of a quote..."All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

If they are allowed to keep out people not wearing shirts then they should be allowed to keep out people who's skin colour they don't like?

You've got to be fuckin kidding me.

Walk is "funnier" than I thought.

You're aware of the fact that you can put on a shirt, but changing your skin color is a bit trickier right?

Woman who agree with you should be allowed to have some rights, but only as long as they're not too liberal?


You're starting to sound like somebody who would've loved to live in a Taliban ruled country.  :hihi:



/jarmo

Disregarding ur blatant sexism i feel i should mention that women, historically, have always tended to vote more conservatively, much of the time :confused:

I'm sorry if I'm wrong but did you just call racism "open minded"?

Walk: As I have stated before I think you just say these things to stir the pot and get attention. The worst thing about this is that you could influence a younger reader to condone this racist type of thought. So, unfortunately it is important to respond to you, and set you straight.

Maybe you should think of it that way? Ask yourself, is this doing any good to post this? Could it influence a younger poster to believe this utter crap?

That's not what I'd be worried about, I think any child over the age of 8 with a proper moral upbringing would know racism is a load of bullshit.

What I'd be worried about is if there are any posters here that happen to be black reading this shit and taking severe offence. Because I'm white as snow and am still disgusted.

Yea I agree. Although sometimes younger people can be swayed, even if the subject of racism is absurd.

I am slightly offended by the racist shit here, but at the same time it is just kind of pathetic and in the minority. This is just a cowardly place to voice his opinioin. I'd put money down that he doesn't talk this shit in public, in front of people.

Actually, it was not handed down by the Supreme Court.  It was passed by Congess.  Absent such legislation, the Constitution does not prohibit private discrimination.

In addition, there is oftentimes wording added to legislation that exempts secular organizations from being held up to this.  In other words, Catholic organizations are able to hire ONLY Catholics if the organization is secular in nature (ie: a Catholic school or a Catholic Head Start program).

In fact, such groups are almost constitutionally allowed to discriminate.  It is part of the First Amendment's freedom of association.  For example, the famous case upholding this was the boy scout case allowing them to prohibit gay scout leaders.  Of course, this only applies in a narrow context where interstate commerce is not involved, among other things of course.

Exactly.  Actually, the language I spoke of is added mostly to federal funding bills, since, usually, federal funding is not allowed if there is discrimination (witness the boy scout case you spoke of).  They specifically put in language that allows secular organizations to recieve the funding EVEN THOUGH they only hire based on religious beliefs.

I believe that positivist thoughts are healthy for a philosophical mind. Absolutist thoughts are reserved for God, through the Bible, since we sinners are incapable of absolute moral judgement. There you go; there's the "worldview" I have. The whole point of this is humility, which encourages growth and wisdom. It's troublesome when people accept a questionable absolute as truth and expect the government to enforce this truth. The people who do this are likely unable to support it themselves, so they use the state as intervention to grind it into everyone elses' faces.

It's ironic that an individualistic society can behave this way. I think it's an individual's right to make stupid decisions (as well as good ones!) and likely run out of business or lose profits over them. The government shouldn't get involved here, since it always ends up in a courtroom and the lawyers win. In fact, many countries don't even have a concept of free speech, so hate speech can be avoided. It's just my fault for being a freedom loving American. I think even hate speech, like war protestors who hate our soldiers, should be allowed, even if frowned on and ultimately ignored.

As for younger posters, let them make up their own minds about things. Hopefully they'll realize someday how much of a mistake socialism is. I hope states' rights will become a bigger issue if (when?) terrorism is somehow kicked out of the limelight. Let cultures set their own value systems and don't use government, especially federal government, to homogenize it all.

What you just said in no way answers the questions you were asked. You class racism as positivist thoughts? And equality as absolutist thoughts? Very rarely is their a right and wrong on issues regarding opinion, except on racism and other forms of discrimination. You say absolutist thoughts are reserved for the bible. What the hell does that mean? You justify racism by saying, humans are incabable of complete moral judgement. So humans being imperfect specimens is a valid excuse to hate other races? You also say "it's troublesome when people accept a questionable absolute as truth and expect government to enforce this truth." Therefor calling equality a questionable absolute, and later call yourself "a freedom loving American", your contradicting yourself! You question the state's attempt to enforce freedom, if the state did not try to enforce freedom in any way where do you think the world would be now? Slavery? White Supremecy? The government may not do a perfect job enforcing these laws, but it's their duty to!

Even if those decisions affect someone else's lives in a bad way. And impede on someone's human rights?

First off, the majority of American war protesters care about their soldiers. Thus wanting them home from a war that's killing them. And if hate speech was allowed would you participate in such an act. And could you look a black man in the face and call him a 'nigger'. Somehow I doubt it.

Is that how you would go about raising a child? Don't teach it any moral lessons or try to set any examples? If you did how do you think that child would turn out? Pretty fucked up if you ask me.

That statement completely opposes the reason your beloved GW Bush went into Iraq in the first place.

Of course, you mean after the first two reasons fell through. :)

Hmm... I stand corrected and will read more. Although I admit it is not a subject that is of that much interest to me, hence my mistake.

Saddam had clerics write the Koran in their own blood. He abused the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. His policies favored the minority sunni group. He was a poor leader.

Democracy isn't imposing anything on the Iraqis. It's allowing them more control of their land.

Sure it is....on our terms, with our puppet government....

And they asked for our help when?

Actually, I think they asked for our help in 1991 to overthrow Sadam but we were too busy patting ourselves on the back and HW had that election thing and a recession.  Sorry you are Shiite out of luck!

....could be at least one reason to finish what we started.

I know Saddam done some horrific things during his time in power, but that still does not explain what you said. Regardless of what Saddam done while in power you still contradicted your own beliefs. Besides GW is more of a threat to the welfare of Iraq than Saddam ever was. If Saddam needed to be removed so urgently, why not fund or financially aid some of the Iraqi's that seek this removal and allow them to stage their own rebellion rather than bomb the shit out of them and tell them it's for their own good?

Back on subject you have still not explained some of the things that you have been questioned on, I've been watching this thread since it was started, and any time you are presented with a series of questions regarding one of your bullshit statements you answer maybe one of them in an extremely half-assed fashion.

We would have no true morality outside of the morality given to us. Who are we to say what human rights are and aren't? The Bible suggests that some "pottery" is prepared for the fire (Romans 9. Read the whole thing!), so you can come to your own conclusion there. Predestination explains a lot about just about everything.


The government's role is to keep order and preserve a nation from foreign advances. Equality is mostly a theory, anyway. We've aimed for it for centuries and it hasn't been achieved. It might not even be possible. On the other hand, the government has made a lot of mistakes in its pursuit, which is mostly what my argument is.


The government enforces what are basic human rights, like the right to not be murdered or have private property stolen. The problems come up when it comes to a grey area in human rights. For example, corporations are legally allowed to dump pollutants because it's cheaper. It would be illegal not to, since it would violate fiduciary responsibility! Even if people are affected by it, the corporation must do it if it isn't against the law if it would increase profits, otherwise it would be against the law!

The government's responsibility is to weigh the benefits of increased profits to whatever maladies the contamination would facilitate. Sometimes (ok, usually) it rules in favor of higher profits. Now the corporation's position is even stronger than it was before! As you can see, you leave the government responsible for human rights, and sometimes it makes mistakes that affect all economic sectors.


There's a difference between insulting someone and hurting their feelings and endangering the mission of our armed forces. Don't take this difference lightly. Even if protesters personally care for the soldiers, their actions inspire disconfidence in the mission. Also, the nature of the crowd could facilitate a minority to mistreat the soldiers and get away with it in the mob, like the protestors who spat on our Vietnam soldiers. Well meaning protestors make the situation worse simply by being there with the stronger dissidents.


I'll start with the Bible, then Plato and Aristotle, then Evola and Nietzsche, etc. He can make up his own mind, and it's his fault if he makes mistakes. These examples have stood the test of time, and would be appropriate for anyone to learn from, even if not live by.


In this rare occasion, we're increasing the ability of Iraqis to live how they want to, since Saddam didn't allow it. Plus, we get oil. Win win, here!  : ok:

I think human rights is something we are pretty safe to assume is right. There really has to be some sort of law enforcing some sort of equality. If it is flawed, so be it, we need it none the less. Until we learn some sort of ultimate truth from a second coming of the messiah, we need to be able to think for ourselves, there has to be something stopping injustice, I don't think Jesus wants us to follow him blindly and act on nothing without his permission.


But don't you think some form of human rights stopping people being discriminated against, hurt, or even killed because of skin colour, nationality or some other irrelavent appearance is part of keeping order? Is it possible to keep order without stopping racial violence? I don't thin so. Equality may never be acheived because of the small minded prejudices of a select few. This select few has dwindled in numbers considerably over the last century, if we keep on striving for freedom they will one day be extinct. I agree the government, on an international basis has indeed made mistakes up holding equality, a lot of them. But as is said, we can learn from mistakes, because there are certain flaws in enforcing human rights there is no need to throw the whole system out the window and replace it with nothing.




Again these are just flaws in human rights, I totally agree with you there are grey areas such as the effect of polution and waste on people. But these can be learned from, hopefully before it is too late for us. If we throw out the entire human rights system and start from square one we will not have time to get back to environmental issues such as these. It will be too late for us! World government on a whole has come a long way from slavery, torture etc. (with exceptions) we need to keep going from where we are today.


If the government's only responsabilitys were finance and profit we'd be sitting under the ocean right now. This may be the governments main aim and concern, but not rightly so, they should focus further on conservation and proper usage of natural resources; not exploiting them until we have none left. And if we don't leave the government responsible for human rights who will be? The people? That would be anarchy! It would be every man for himself and every minority would surely be wiped out!



I agree, but it was you that intertwined the two in the first place, using American war protesters as an example to back up a claim you made. And I think inspiring disconfidence in the mission is the reason to protest, people protest to try and convince others war is wrong and should be ended. I mean people don't protest a war to build public confidence in it.


But do you really think getting a child to read books on philosophy alone for their moral teachings will be enough? Life experience and wisdom stems from personal experience. I share most of my morals with my parents because they are the people that spent their time teaching them to me. My dad, when I was a child had a lot of black friends and I was taught from an early age, by being around these people, to judge them on what kind of person they are, not the colour of their skin. That is something I know I wouldn't have learned mearly by looking at a book.



It still opposes the point you made, it doesn't make much sense to say, government should never interfere with how a country is run on a social level. And then turn around afterwards and say; 'oh but this time it's ok'. That's a contradiction.

Well, all cultures have their own folkways and methods of handling problems. The problem is when a large federal government uses a "shotgun" approach that isn't appropriate for everyone. The problem is the inherant inefficiency of a large government trying to control a diverse populace. More states' rights would solve the problem.


Violence is already covered under assault laws. Being a jerk, fortunately, isn't illegal, but the ways things are going, it might be soon. People shouldn't be forced to be nice. Ministry of Love, anyone? ;)


You underestimate human nature. Idealism is fine when it accepts reality, but otherwise, it's useless at best and counterproductive at worst.


The UN is a failure. It won't stop the genocides in Africa and it didn't stop Saddam and the Taliban. We did. What happens is human rights ends up poorly defined and never enforced. Those who do attempt to enforce them are called imperialists and end up being protested in the streets.


There is no world government, only treaties and pacts between state governments. People don't learn from history, and even if they did, there is the problem of the human condition. The thing is, with less government, there are problems on an individual level, like the example of this thread. However, when the government tries to stop these small, individual problems, it creates large scale problems and waste. It's the nature of government. Endling slavery, for example, also ended states' rights as they were intended.

The key is, people should either (1) at least stop doing stuff like this to bait the government into overlegislating poor solutions, or (2) better yet, stop supporting liberals!


The free market can decide how resources are allocated very well. The government's record on the environment is comparatively poor. Private conservation groups can do better; even liberals like Ted Turner have shown this to be true! There has to be a point where government exists, but it should never limit freedom.


Exactly. And this would ruin the hopes and dreams of moderate Iraqis and the soldiers who died fighting for their future. The war might have been wrong, but that's not an issue now. We have to finish our job, and protestors aren't helping the cause.

You could actually spin this issue on the federal government problem anyway. It's the big government that starts wars, not the people!


People get plenty of "life experience", whatever that means. It's unavoidable, and it can be negative, as well. However, time spent reading books and engaging the mind is never wasted! People don't read as much as they used to, and should.


No, it isn't. The problem here is that Saddam ran Iraq how he wanted it, not how the people or free market would. It's ironic that a big government (us) solves the problem of a bloated government (Saddam), and this makes it look like a contradiction. Our government just got lucky on this one. A broken clock is right 2x a day, even if it's almost always useless. :)

Our main argument is that you believe government should enforce our rights, while I believe the government can make mistakes, so its power to do this should be limited. This is just the difference between a conservative and liberal. It's a worldview difference, and we aren't going to solve it.

And how do you suggest we solve these problems besides doing nothing? More states rights? I thought you were against the state envoking rights in the first place? I'd rather a flawed something than a big fat nothing.



Physical violence is indeed covered by assault laws, but what about emotional violence, verbal violence, intimidation, discrimination, instanes such as the one this thread was based on in the first place? There are other ways to hurt and intimidate people than physical violence.

State governments tend to be better than federal, but less efficient than state. I'm against the state imposing proprietary solutions on groups who won't benefit from them. This could mean, for example, federal government forcing strong tariffs on the whole nation based on the needs of the North. This particular example led to civil war. It could also mean big city politicians from the state capital making laws inappropriate for rural counties. It could mean a county government making laws unfair to a small town.

The point is, local control and small government are more efficient and people are happier with them that way. The only people upset are the big government politicians and liberals who want to tell people how to live.


There is also the first amendment. It can and will be abused, like by war protestors, but it's important. By definition, however, it exists to protect unpopular ideas, since popular ideas aren't opposed! However, popular ideas can be wrong (war protestors), and unpopular ideas can be right. People easily offended don't belong in a free society.


No, it wouldn't. People can't give up imperfections because they are inherent of the human condition. They're something we have to live with, not make ridiculous policies that can never be achieved. The UN is particularly infamous in this regard. They don't understand that some people don't care about strongly worded rebukes and sanctions that end up killing more innocents than anything else.


I believe Jefferson said the life of the republic is fueled from the blood of both patriots and tyrants, or something along those lines. Violence is often the only solution that matters, and it's not always bad. It's unpopular because individuals are killed, even if whole societies benefit. Centuries later, however, wars are usually seen as a good thing, since people from that time period are all dead. Think of the American revolution. Pacifists didn't like it then, but we're glad it happened now!


The UN is a set of treaties that member states accept and rarely abide by. It has no authority over regions it doesn't control. The troubles in Southern Europe a few years ago were solved by NATO and American soldiers, but the UN took credit. That's all it does. Nazis are a minority because of bloody warfare, and Communists are dying out because some people learn from history that government is inherantly inefficient. We're called conservatives. ;)

States' rights is an extremely complex issue that needs a lot of reading. For one example, the first 10 amendments were never originally intended to be forced on state governments. Theoretically, this would increase peoples' freedom, since state governments couldn't abuse them. In reality, the reduced state power, and federal power increased.


Quit making straw men; it's in poor taste. Basic human rights are the right to an ordered society and a free market. Anything past this means government is imposing their views on people. True human rights are inalienable and are not granted by the government. Making the government enforce some rights tends to make it seem that they're where our rights come from. They aren't.


Fiduciary responsibility. There's a difference between a multinational corporation and an individual who wants to contribute to a charity. Learn the laws...


The American revolution was confusing at first, but look where it led to! You're looking at things from the individual's perspective with no long term focus. In a few generations, they'll be better educated to appreciate what is happening now.


Morality counts for less when its based on reflex instead of a conscious decision. I don't want to become the big government I dislike, even if I have to make compromises at times. That's just life.  :-\


The government has its own motives for things; that's realty. It only stands for human rights when it benefits from them. It has no altruism. It's very similar to how a corporation behaves, except it's more dangerous because it's much more powerful and people somehow believe they have control over it. Your first sentence shows this. GW does what he wants, and it just happens to be right, usually, but your point is still valid. Leaving human rights to a few individuals to enforce is dangerous.

Most people like an ordered society, and there are very few problems with human rights in the US. When the government acts like we have human rights problems, it's because it has its own motive for creative laws that would benefit it, usually by more taxes.

what the fuck does this last page have even remotely to do with the original title??? The whole thread has again, turned into another iraq thread. When the fuck will you learn to keep it where it belongs? In the Iraq threads.