Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

[quote name='elprincipe']
Smoking is a different thing as you are now talking about harming someone else's health through your actions, unless you mean smoking in the privacy of your own home. I'm sure this will again move this topic further OT, but personally, I don't think anyone has the right to smoke where I have to breathe their disgusting pollution in. If you want to smoke, fine, just make sure you are only harming yourself.
[/QUOTE]

But fat people cause global warming because they eat so much. Think of how much better the earth would be if we just made sure all the fatties were forced to be a normal weight.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Well, it's my topic and it hasn't been on topic for a long time, so let's go with this. ;)

I assume, when you say "where I have to breathe", you don't mean inside of buildings where the owners are okay with people smoking, right?[/QUOTE]

I mean in public. But workplaces should have smoking banned, as most do, because it shouldn't be a job requirement to breathe in hazardous waste.

[quote name='cindersphere']But fat people cause global warming because they eat so much. Think of how much better the earth would be if we just made sure all the fatties were forced to be a normal weight.[/QUOTE]

I can't tell if you are joking or serious (curse the Internet for that). Please confirm that you are joking so I don't think you're an idiot.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']But fat people cause global warming because they eat so much. Think of how much better the earth would be if we just made sure all the fatties were forced to be a normal weight.[/QUOTE]
Remind me to let loose with a good Old Country Buffet ass bomb right next to you to pollute your air.;)
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I mean in public. But workplaces should have smoking banned, as most do, because it shouldn't be a job requirement to breathe in hazardous waste.



I can't tell if you are joking or serious (curse the Internet for that). Please confirm that you are joking so I don't think you're an idiot.[/QUOTE]

Joking, of course, however I have started seeing articles like this recently.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I mean in public. But workplaces should have smoking banned, as most do, because it shouldn't be a job requirement to breathe in hazardous waste.[/QUOTE]

You kinda get into an icky area though - isn't virtually every place aside from a private residence a "workplace"? Should patrons of my bar not be allowed to smoke, even though I'm okay with it - (note, I don't have a bar) - just because a waitress isn't? Should a minimum wage employee with little investment into the business get such a large say in how it's ran?
 
Thing is, a smoking ban only works if ALL places are smoke free. In the state of PA they allowed exceptions and exemptions from it, specifically for the casino industry in this state.

That was the main reason why I didn't take a job in said industry, since I refuse to put MY health at risk for someone else's decisions.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Joking, of course, however I have started seeing articles like this recently.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's why it's so hard to tell if you were joking or not!

[quote name='UncleBob']You kinda get into an icky area though - isn't virtually every place aside from a private residence a "workplace"? Should patrons of my bar not be allowed to smoke, even though I'm okay with it - (note, I don't have a bar) - just because a waitress isn't? Should a minimum wage employee with little investment into the business get such a large say in how it's ran?[/QUOTE]

Yes, just about every place except a residence or other private property. No, patrons of bars and restaurants should not be allowed to smoke because it endangers the health of the employees. Builders aren't allowed to use asbestos anymore either, no matter how okay they are with that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yes, just about every place except a residence or other private property. No, patrons of bars and restaurants should not be allowed to smoke because it endangers the health of the employees. Builders aren't allowed to use asbestos anymore either, no matter how okay they are with that.[/QUOTE]

My business is my private property. You are here by invitation only and I may revoke that invitation at any time.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']My business is my private property. You are here by invitation only and I may revoke that invitation at any time.[/QUOTE]

So wrong again. Please let me reiterate that the majority of small businesses in this country DON'T own the buildings they operate in. They are not private property.
 
[quote name='depascal22']So wrong again. Please let me reiterate that the majority of small businesses in this country DON'T own the buildings they operate in. They are not private property.[/QUOTE]

If they're renting, then the person they're renting from owns the property. It is between the two of them (the renter and the landlord) to determine under what legal circumstances the property is going to be used. Why is that so crazy for you to understand?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']My business is my private property. You are here by invitation only and I may revoke that invitation at any time.[/QUOTE]

By the same logic, you can throw out anyone who is black, or a Republican, or has a nose ring. If you open up for business and invite the public in, or even employees governed by labor laws, you can't do those things.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']By the same logic, you can throw out anyone who is black, or a Republican, or has a nose ring. If you open up for business and invite the public in, or even employees governed by labor laws, you can't do those things.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='JolietJake']Careful, plenty of people would say they should be able to do all of those things, Bob i don't know.[/QUOTE]

Yes.

I know it's something many people disagree with me on, but if I own the property (or I'm renting the property from someone who is okay with how I plan to use it), then I should have the right to determine who I wish to associate with on my property. If that means I don't want to let someone with a nose ring in my bar, then I shouldn't have to let people with nose rings in my bar.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If they're renting, then the person they're renting from owns the property. It is between the two of them (the renter and the landlord) to determine under what legal circumstances the property is going to be used. Why is that so crazy for you to understand?[/QUOTE]

That's not what you mean and you know it. You keep saying that a business owner can do whatever he wants because it's private property. It's true it's private property but NOT the business owners.

For example: I used to own my own business and run it out of my rented townhome. I could be on a hugely important business call but if the property owner needed to do a safety inspection, I can't deny him entrance. Think about that for a second. I can't just do whatever I want on the property just because the landlord owns the property. It makes no sense.
 
[quote name='depascal22']That's not what you mean and you know it. You keep saying that a business owner can do whatever he wants because it's private property. It's true it's private property but NOT the business owners.

For example: I used to own my own business and run it out of my rented townhome. I could be on a hugely important business call but if the property owner needed to do a safety inspection, I can't deny him entrance. Think about that for a second. I can't just do whatever I want on the property just because the landlord owns the property. It makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

It is exactly what I mean. If I'm renting from someone, then it should be between me and the landlord as to how I (legally, of course), use the property. If the landlord says "Hey, you can open a bar here, but I don't want none of those nose-ring'd guys coming in", then I should either agree, negotiate, or find another property to rent. Likewise, if I'm renting and I tell the landlord "I'm going to open a bar, but I'm not going to allow guys with nose rings to come in", then, at this point, the landlord can agree, negotiate or find someone else to rent to.

In either situation, some random guy on the street that has zero investment (time or money) in the property or business shouldn't be allowed to force his way onto *my* property (either the property I own or the property I'm in a legal agreement to be in charge of) without my consent.
 
It's useless to argue with most of them, Bob. Their moral philosophy forbids private ownership of anything. In order for the State, i.e., The People, to control your life, the power of revocation without due process is paramount. Instead of individual autonomy and government protection of inalienable, individual rights, group rights must be portioned, rationed, and appropriated at will in order to maintain order and equality. The end result being that NO ONE is autonomous, except, of course, the State.

It's a travesty to allow people to own things, it precludes the right of other people to use that property as they see fit. Depscal is oblivious to the 'idea' of a business as property. I could even refer to it as "intellectual" property, but he would insist that because you can't touch it, it doesn't really exist. Stepping up to the counter to buy a candy bar, reading the price on the cash register, drawing your wallet, presenting legal tender, and leaving with said candy bar is a business contract. Although no piece of paper is signed, it is nonetheless a contract, or an agreement to trade. It exists at the exact moment in time goods are traded. And the only time the government should have a say in that process is when they are doing the transacting or it's being done across state borders.

So regardless if you own the building in which you conduct business, the business itself is property owned by you and you could fold it if you saw fit. You also SHOULD have the right to enter into a contract with whomever you see fit, and not be mandated to conduct business with anyone you don't feel is in your best interest.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']In either situation, some random guy on the street that has zero investment (time or money) in the property or business shouldn't be allowed to force his way onto *my* property (either the property I own or the property I'm in a legal agreement to be in charge of) without my consent.[/QUOTE]

In case you forgot, that's what customers do when they want to shop at your store. Some random guy walks down the street and pushes the door open when he sees something of interest to buy. We are talking about businesses remember? Would you just tell him to GTFO because he's a random guy that "forced" his way into your personal private property that's not really your personal private property.
 
[quote name='depascal22']In case you forgot, that's what customers do when they want to shop at your store. Some random guy walks down the street and pushes the door open when he sees something of interest to buy. We are talking about businesses remember? Would you just tell him to GTFO because he's a random guy that "forced" his way into your personal private property that's not really your personal private property.[/QUOTE]
Thats the point, it is his choice if he wants to tell that person to GTFO and lose that customer among others by word of mouth. He can run his business into the ground if he wants to, who are you to tell him he cant do that?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']They're called "public accommodation laws."

Jesus fucking Christ.[/QUOTE]

theres public accommodation laws for people with a nose ring?
 
nope. god knows I know that one all too well after this past week.

side note: fuck you denver.

back to the discussion, you're making broad claims about who can and can not be discriminated against - you made no distinction between refusing to seat someone with a nose ring, someone who "looks muslim," or someone too portly for a booth. so don't pare down what you haven't pared down just because I refuted your initial claim very simply.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']nope. god knows I know that one all too well after this past week.

side note: fuck you denver.

back to the discussion, you're making broad claims about who can and can not be discriminated against - you made no distinction between refusing to seat someone with a nose ring, someone who "looks muslim," or someone too portly for a booth. so don't pare down what you haven't pared down just because I refuted your initial claim very simply.[/QUOTE]
they have been talking about someone with a nose ring for like 2 pages....

I don't think business owners should be able to be discriminatory but otherwise I think they have the right to run their business however they want. If there isn't a market for a non-nose ring bar then they will surely fold and fail.
 
Now, I'm skimming the posts, but I'm calling bullshit. I see one post prior to your specification that says anything about piercings.

Perhaps I'm biased since I experienced exactly that form of discrimination this week (I did take my nose ring out, but boo, I have earrings!) in terms of not being hired for a job I'm totally, totally (add a few more) qualified for. But I'm not exactly clamoring for a law to protect the pierced in terms of public accommodations, just pointing out that you're clinging to a point of argumentation that is scarcely discussed in this thread.
 
[quote name='depascal22']In case you forgot, that's what customers do when they want to shop at your store. Some random guy walks down the street and pushes the door open when he sees something of interest to buy. We are talking about businesses remember? Would you just tell him to GTFO because he's a random guy that "forced" his way into your personal private property that's not really your personal private property.[/QUOTE]

You keep focusing on this "not your property" thing.

Does this mean, in depascalland, that if you rent an apartment, it's not your property, thus you cannot stop just anyone from coming in, sitting down and watching some TV?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now, I'm skimming the posts, but I'm calling bullshit. I see one post prior to your specification that says anything about piercings.

Perhaps I'm biased since I experienced exactly that form of discrimination this week (I did take my nose ring out, but boo, I have earrings!) in terms of not being hired for a job I'm totally, totally (add a few more) qualified for. But I'm not exactly clamoring for a law to protect the pierced in terms of public accommodations, just pointing out that you're clinging to a point of argumentation that is scarcely discussed in this thread.[/QUOTE]

The persons arguement that I was quoting is flawed, although the owner of a business should be able to kick anyone out he wants as long as his reasons are based on things people can change, the owner would obviously not kick someone out that didnt do anything or affect anyone around him. The argument he made was designed to show an extreme example to disprove the entire theory, I believe you people call it a "strawman". If a business doesn't want black people at his bar then that is discriminatory because that is an unchangable aspect of that person and infringes on the equality of all people, but if a business doesnt want nose ringed people at his bar then he is not infringing on the right of nose ringed people because people made the choice to be nose ringed and should be ready to not only deal with the benefits of that choice but the repercussions of their choices as well. Religion is a bit touchy, and I dont see how anyone would know your religion unless you are preaching in someones establishment which I think you should be able to throw them out. But if you hear from a friend that the guy over there is jewish, so you throw him out that should not be allowed.

If you really didn't get hired because of the jewelry it is still not discriminatory. You do not have to have jewelry on your face and it is that businesses perogative to establish a face for their company, and you didnt fit it. If you are finding it hard to find a job because of the jewelry, maybe you should consider not keeping it then.
 
You don't seem to understand the very definition of the word discriminatory. Discrimination is not inherently a violation of the law - to imply that it is, or to suggest that it's not what I experienced is rather silly and a wholesale demonstration of your ineptitude at debate.

Also, you should note that I addressed its legality already.

Please have an actual conversation with us - don't just say things for the sake of feeling the need to say them. It give the rest of us headaches and shows that you come here without actually engaging the discussion - just to ejaculate your opinions without regard to the status of what words have already been said and points having been made. Stop being a dunderhead and join the rest of us, who read and respond to posts. Your world, where one post about a nosering means "talking for...2 pages" and where you think I'm considering a lawsuit for being discriminated against, is not one in which any of us live.

And let's be fair: I'm stinking drunk and my reading comprehension is still superior to yours. What's that shit Rush Limbaugh used to say about "half my brain tied behind my back"? Well, a bit less tied and a bit more steeped in booze, and a good bit more than half - but the same principle for certain.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You don't seem to understand the very definition of the word discriminatory. Discrimination is not inherently a violation of the law - to imply that it is, or to suggest that it's not what I experienced is rather silly and a wholesale demonstration of your ineptitude at debate.

Also, you should note that I addressed its legality already.

Please have an actual conversation with us - don't just say things for the sake of feeling the need to say them. It give the rest of us headaches and shows that you come here without actually engaging the discussion - just to ejaculate your opinions without regard to the status of what words have already been said and points having been made. Stop being a dunderhead and join the rest of us, who read and respond to posts. Your world, where one post about a nosering means "talking for...2 pages" and where you think I'm considering a lawsuit for being discriminated against, is not one in which any of us live.

And let's be fair: I'm stinking drunk and my reading comprehension is still superior to yours. What's that shit Rush Limbaugh used to say about "half my brain tied behind my back"? Well, a bit less tied and a bit more steeped in booze, and a good bit more than half - but the same principle for certain.[/QUOTE]

Drunk huh? that explains why your post makes no sense. Half your points are accusations that don't apply, and the other half is your opinion that you carelessly "ejaculate". I never said you were considering a lawsuit for being discriminated against, nor did I even mention anything about laws.

I exaggerated two pages but it is funny that you pick on me for the nose ring post but if you look you will find quite a few posts talking about the nosering, not that it matters at all, you will still find something to nitpick about rather than discussing what everyone else is discussing.....

If you really want to talk about kicking a random person out with no nosering then lets talk, (maybe when you are sober). What is wrong with a business owner throwing any random person out of their store? I find it hard to discuss this point because it will only lead to why you threw him out of the store.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBob
My business is my private property. You are here by invitation only and I may revoke that invitation at any time.

elprincipe:
By the same logic, you can throw out anyone who is black, or a Republican, or has a nose ring. If you open up for business and invite the public in, or even employees governed by labor laws, you can't do those things.

unclebob:
Yes.

I know it's something many people disagree with me on, but if I own the property (or I'm renting the property from someone who is okay with how I plan to use it), then I should have the right to determine who I wish to associate with on my property. If that means I don't want to let someone with a nose ring in my bar, then I shouldn't have to let people with nose rings in my bar.

Unclebob:

It is exactly what I mean. If I'm renting from someone, then it should be between me and the landlord as to how I (legally, of course), use the property. If the landlord says "Hey, you can open a bar here, but I don't want none of those nose-ring'd guys coming in", then I should either agree, negotiate, or find another property to rent. Likewise, if I'm renting and I tell the landlord "I'm going to open a bar, but I'm not going to allow guys with nose rings to come in", then, at this point, the landlord can agree, negotiate or find someone else to rent to.

In either situation, some random guy on the street that has zero investment (time or money) in the property or business shouldn't be allowed to force his way onto *my* property (either the property I own or the property I'm in a legal agreement to be in charge of) without my consent.
 
Let me ask you a simple question with small words you can understand.

If you are hiring a security guard (for whatever reason), and you elect to not hire an applicant who is blind, are you discriminating against him/her?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Let me ask you a simple question with small words you can understand.

If you are hiring a security guard (for whatever reason), and you elect to not hire an applicant who is blind, are you discriminating against him/her?[/QUOTE]

Still drunk?

No because you can prove that the security position itself requires sight.

What was the point of that?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To reinforce that you don't understand what the word 'discriminate' means. You passed that test with flying colors.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? Some ill concieved point you have twisted around in your mind, I guess. I am assuming you think that discriminating applies here regardless of whether or not you are breaking the law. So is this your drawn out point? to prove to me discrimination occurs outside the bounds of the law?

Of course it does, but that is not what we were talking about and wasn't the point of the discussion earlier. We were discussing if we (property owners) could throw a person with a nosering or any random person out. The very basis of your argument was that it is against the law.
[quote name='mykevermin']They're called "public accommodation laws."

Jesus fucking Christ.[/QUOTE]

So join the conversation like a normal person instead of trying to make some ill concieved dumb point.

Yep I'm the one who derails threads. uh huh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']You keep focusing on this "not your property" thing.

Does this mean, in depascalland, that if you rent an apartment, it's not your property, thus you cannot stop just anyone from coming in, sitting down and watching some TV?[/QUOTE]

Now you're just being a fucking retard. We are NOT talking about renting something out for personal use. We are talking about businesses right? Then why the fuck do you keep bringing up circumstances that NEVER happen with a personal business? Damn, you're dense.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Now you're just being a fucking retard. We are NOT talking about renting something out for personal use. We are talking about businesses right? Then why the fuck do you keep bringing up circumstances that NEVER happen with a personal business? Damn, you're dense.[/QUOTE]

It's weird. I always thought rental property was a business.
 
So coolstorybro time:

I was playing white knight chronicles (yeah that game that was hyped but got a 64 on metacritic), and I was playing with a dude from Kansas. We got to talking about politics, and how he's voting for a candidate because he has 'good christian values'.

He started talking about miranda rights, how he's a fan of glenn beck. he said obama surrounds himself with people who are anti-american. I said nobody called Bush's people anti-american, they were just people who believed in different things.

he said beck makes a lot of good points and has good christian values. i told him how beck criticized people who said the arizona law is like nazi germany, and that it was bad to compare stuff to nazis. lewis black then did a piece showing how beck throws around hitler and nazis the same way rudy giuliani threw around 9/11.

he said obama surrounds himself with socialist marxists. i said who cares, obama's policies are not reflecting that. he is getting hammered by his left base because he isn't going far enough.

This is an example of a rational conversation that can be had with tea partiers. Also, check out a video of Sen. Al Franken having a rational discussion with tea partiers about healthcare.

These conversations can be had, just remember some people really believe everything Beck says and they don't check facts themselves.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's weird. I always thought rental property was a business.[/QUOTE]

Again, you're being a fucktard. If I rent out an apartment for personal use, there are different rules than if I set up a shop. You know this but you're being deliberately fucking obtuse and ever so close to that ignore list.
 
[quote name='IRHari']So coolstorybro time:

I was playing white knight chronicles (yeah that game that was hyped but got a 64 on metacritic), and I was playing with a dude from Kansas. We got to talking about politics, and how he's voting for a candidate because he has 'good christian values'.

He started talking about miranda rights, how he's a fan of glenn beck. he said obama surrounds himself with people who are anti-american. I said nobody called Bush's people anti-american, they were just people who believed in different things.

he said beck makes a lot of good points and has good christian values. i told him how beck criticized people who said the arizona law is like nazi germany, and that it was bad to compare stuff to nazis. lewis black then did a piece showing how beck throws around hitler and nazis the same way rudy giuliani threw around 9/11.

he said obama surrounds himself with socialist marxists. i said who cares, obama's policies are not reflecting that. he is getting hammered by his left base because he isn't going far enough.

This is an example of a rational conversation that can be had with tea partiers. Also, check out a video of Sen. Al Franken having a rational discussion with tea partiers about healthcare.

These conversations can be had, just remember some people really believe everything Beck says and they don't check facts themselves.[/QUOTE]

what facts did you check that he should believe what you told him? All I seem to see is you throwing around other peoples opinions....

I especially love the part where you claim how nobobdy bashed bush or his people.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bush&aq=f

http://freeliberal.com/archives/001235.html

http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/?p=151

http://www.richardsblog.net/karl-rove-lyn-cheney-unamerican.html

http://www.bushsbrain.com/

Oh wait you said noone called him "antiamerican", I guess this stuff doesn't count.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He had absolutely no basis for calling them antiamerican, just the fact that he felt they were antithetical to what America is.

That word 'antiamerican' has lost all meaning thanks to Iraq war supporters.

Similarly, the word 'antisemitic' has come to mean 'anti-supportIsraelineverythingitdoes'.

I admit I shouldn't have made a blanket statement like 'nobody' or 'never', etc. You do it sometimes and I should definitely not take a page from your ass.
 
[quote name='IRHari']He had absolutely no basis for calling them antiamerican, just the fact that he felt they were antithetical to what America is.

That word 'antiamerican' has lost all meaning thanks to Iraq war supporters.

Similarly, the word 'antisemitic' has come to mean 'anti-supportIsraelineverythingitdoes'.

I admit I shouldn't have made a blanket statement like 'nobody' or 'never', etc. You do it sometimes and I should definitely not take a page from your ass.[/QUOTE]

in your opinion...
 
Of course!! Do I have to preface every one of my fucking posts with 'IMO'? You certainly don't do it, and every one of your posts are opinion also.

You're ridiculous brah.

I'm glad the only thing you could find to criticize was my blanket statement that NOBODY said that. Sure some people did. Just like some tea partiers are racists. Coolstorybro.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Of course!! Do I have to preface every one of my fucking posts with 'IMO'? You certainly don't do it, and every one of your posts are opinion also.

You're ridiculous brah.

I'm glad the only thing you could find to criticize was my blanket statement that NOBODY said that. Sure some people did. Just like some tea partiers are racists. Coolstorybro.[/QUOTE]

Lol, Im not criticizing you using your opinion at all, I just found it funny that you just went on a rant against other peoples opinions about the opposition, and then continued on to rant about the opposition and preach how "unamerican" has lost its meaning with your opinion.

Double standards anyone?

[quote name='IRHari']
These conversations can be had, just remember some people really believe everything Beck says and they don't check facts themselves.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
it has meaning? please enlighten me. it was tossed around so often before and during the iraq war, i dont see any meaning behind the phrase anymore (just like how racist is tossed around way too often - i knew youd like that one!). see also: descriptions of obama during the 2008 election.

again, to describe what i wrote as a 'rant' does a disservice to the conversation i had with this guy. we listened to each other.

i understood he wanted someone who upheld christian values, and he understood that i thought it was disingenuous to describe obama by the company he kept (just van jones?)
 
[quote name='depascal22']Again, you're being a fucktard. If I rent out an apartment for personal use, there are different rules than if I set up a shop. You know this but you're being deliberately fucking obtuse and ever so close to that ignore list.[/QUOTE]

I'd rather be obtuse than someone who has to resort to name calling and cursing because they can't communicate with the outside world otherwise. If this is how you choose to communicate, please feel free to put me on your ignore list. It won't hurt my feelings one bit and the less posts you reply to like your above reply, the better off this board will be.
 
lol, they released his birth certificate like 2 years ago. It doesn't matter, they troll on. Black man with foreign name isn't American.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You have to take a step back from the obvious and logical on occasion.

How does a CN SSN travel back in time and end up on the other side of the country?[/QUOTE]

That is very odd. But wouldn't there be more press about this? Even I don't think the media would be willing to blackout this story.

What do they mean about him having two SSN numbers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top