Bishop Hedd Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Is this strange man going to be the typical teabagger candidate? http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010...-fallout-begins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Nancy Pelosi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 That's an odd thing. Private businesses regularly exclude based on sex, age, "who you know," income, and even race (let's see me try to join a bunch of minority organizations as white dude). I'm not sure he's so wrong but taking that stance publicly will get him skewered. He lost with that answer because people are too stupid to hear the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I discriminate against poor people. I'm a real bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I'm still wondering what he said that would qualify him as a "supercreep"? Oh thats right, it's all a matter of perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I'm still wondering what he said that would qualify him as a "supercreep"? It's probably his unhealthy Sarah Palin obsession... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 It's not really that extreme a position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 It's not really that extreme a position. I agree, which specific position is it that you were referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I agree, which specific position is it that you were referring to? That private business owners should be able to exclude whoever they want based on whatever criteria they like. I don't necessarily agree, but it's not like he's David Duke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 That private business owners should be able to exclude whoever they want based on whatever criteria they like. I don't necessarily agree, but it's not like he's David Duke. I would characterize this as a libertarian conundrum. Libertarian points of view consist of as little government interference as possible, but then you have this. Considering that he reiterated his point more than a few times that he wouldn't support anyone or company that practiced this sort of discrimination, I think anyone who doesn't have an agenda see's his POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Funny thing is, his pops is the SAME WAY, but the libs OVERLOOKED his extreme right wing/libertarian ideology becuase he was agaisnt the Iraq war. Like Magox says...its "live and let live", to the max. My bro-in-law is even further in this direction. HIS political ideology is basically "every man for himself!!!!" And I think Rand Paul is creepy, too. You look in his eyes, hear how hes doing these interviews...something dont seem right...elevator's not making all the stops or something.......I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Supercreep Eric Holder... http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...k-Panthers.aspx "Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb, one brandishing a nightstick and saying things like, "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"" Holder dropped a slam dunk case (with video proof) of voter intimidation against bat wielding members of the Black Panther Party. Doesn't get much creepier than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I would characterize this as a libertarian conundrum. Libertarian points of view consist of as little government interference as possible, but then you have this. Considering that he reiterated his point more than a few times that he wouldn't support anyone or company that practiced this sort of discrimination, I think anyone who doesn't have an agenda see's his POV. It is indeed a Libertarian conundrum. I can't find fault with his position at a logical level, but at the same time, I cannot conceive of a society that would only serve people of a certain race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 It is indeed a Libertarian conundrum. I can't find fault with his position at a logical level, but at the same time, I cannot conceive of a society that would only serve people of a certain race. It's the same idealist argument as always. There is no morally acceptable answer the problems brought about by "no government interference". The classic anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 The classic anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore the consequences. I'm good with that. But then, I'm also good with seeing people who discriminate get the living **** beat out of them, and I wish duelling was legal. So I'm probably not the best source for an opinion on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 It's the same idealist argument as always. There is no morally acceptable answer the problems brought about by "no government interference". The classic anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore the consequences. I believe too many people like to put things into a black or white context. Obviously government has a role, I think the message should be about reducing the size of government, as opposed to eliminating it. I think Europe is a brilliant example of why bigger government philosophies don't work well on a sustained basis for the citizens of those countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I believe too many people like to put things into a black or white context. Obviously government has a role, I think the message should be about reducing the size of government, as opposed to eliminating it. I think Europe is a brilliant example of why bigger government philosophies don't work well on a sustained basis for the citizens of those countries. Beware the Libertarian backlash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I'm good with that. But then, I'm also good with seeing people who discriminate get the living **** beat out of them, and I wish duelling was legal. So I'm probably not the best source for an opinion on the matter. At least you don't try to weasel your way around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 It's the same idealist argument as always. There is no morally acceptable answer the problems brought about by "no government interference". The classic anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore the consequences. Isn't this debate proof that you're wrong? The big-government people cornered the "ignoring consequences" market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Isn't this debate proof that you're wrong? The big-government people cornered the "ignoring consequences" market. Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts