The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='Clak']:rofl: Ron Paul would support anything in the name of property rights. That's because property is what he values more than anything else. fuck equality, it's mah propertah dammit![/QUOTE]

Of course saying that the market will take care of it is no answer at all.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I didn't see any "owning" in that clip. It was a respectful exchange of ideas as per usual for The Daily Show. In any case, I posted the clip because it presents Paul responding to someone making the Industrial Revolution argument.[/quote]
Paul was waffling in response to Stewarts historically factual, yet simple arguments. Just because Paul was responding doesn't mean that he had well-thought out arguments. A shit sandwich covered in gravy is still a shit sandwich.

The courts are so overburdened that there are actually private courts. You might see a retired judge being paid to hear cases. But courts are in the constitution so we wouldn't have exclusively private courts.
Click to expand...
Arbitration is different from courts and shouldn't be the model for our justice system any more than having directly elected judges. I dislike our justice system, but the idea of private courts is so antithical to an impartial justice system that I don't even know how you can support it.

Slavery is unconstitutional and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Jim Crow laws were also unconstitutional and school segregation was in fact overturned by the Supreme Court. All of those laws were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
What came first? The Emancipation Proclaimation or those amendments? Stop avoiding the question. At least completely ignore it so you don't look like a punk tap dancing around a point that you know I have you pegged on.

[quote name='UncleBob']Not to mention the Bush/Obama attack on our privacy and crap like Gitmo. I'd really love to seem some feet held to the fire there.[/QUOTE]
You have a point about things like the PATRIOT Act and NDAA(or however it's spelled), but you can't pin Gitmo on his ass because conservatives were throwing hissy fits about NIMBY bullshit. On the brightside, you should be happy because we elected a Republican president!

Aside: The funniest thing about saying how liberals should be supporting Paul is that not one conservative would be caught dead supporting Sanders, Kucinich, or even Frank when interests intersect and they bring up the same issues. So why the fuck should any liberal listen to a conservative when there's no recipricosity or that people can clearly see that they're being manipulated.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
In any case, there wasn't any urgent, current humanitarian need to get him out of power in 2003 like there was with Libya last year with Gaddafi threatning to slaughter citizens[/QUOTE]
Libya has the second highest HDI in Africa and is rated "high human development." If humanitarian ideals were so important we'd be pushing forward with some kind of plan for the Congo.

The country of Libya is going to pay a very high price for the recent conflict. They can certainly do what they want with their country, but it wasn't necessary for anyone else to get involved. There are reports that the rebels are torturing detainees.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You have a point about things like the PATRIOT Act and NDAA(or however it's spelled), but you can't pin Gitmo on his ass because conservatives were throwing hissy fits about NIMBY bullshit. On the brightside, you should be happy because we elected a Republican president![/quote]

That'd be great, if I wanted a Republican president.

Aside: The funniest thing about saying how liberals should be supporting Paul is that not one conservative would be caught dead supporting Sanders, Kucinich, or even Frank when interests intersect and they bring up the same issues. So why the fuck should any liberal listen to a conservative when there's no recipricosity or that people can clearly see that they're being manipulated.
Click to expand...

You should put these words in your **** sandwich and eat it.
On this very forum, I suggested a Paul/Sanders (or Sanders/Paul) ticket. Yeah, it'd never happen, but it would get my vote and yard sign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Mike23']Any predictions for tonight?[/QUOTE]

Romney wins. But votes are spread around a lot with no one getting a big %.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You should put these words in your **** sandwich and eat it.
On this very forum, I suggested a Paul/Sanders (or Sanders/Paul) ticket. Yeah, it'd never happen, but it would get my vote and yard sign.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck is up with you wanting credit for every non-typical conservative stance? You know that isn't the point, but you don't see David Frum writing articles about conservatives needing to support Alan Grayson.

And unless Sanders decided to flex like Cheney, we both know that Sanders would be impotent in a Paul presidency.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What the fuck is up with you wanting credit for every non-typical conservative stance?[/quote]

[quote name='dohdough']Aside: The funniest thing about saying how liberals should be supporting Paul is that not one conservative would be caught dead supporting Sanders, Kucinich, or even Frank when interests intersect and they bring up the same issues.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']Aside: The funniest thing about saying how liberals should be supporting Paul is that not one conservative would be caught dead supporting Sanders[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']not one conservative would be caught dead supporting Sanders[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']not one conservative would be caught dead supporting Sanders[/QUOTE]

And unless Sanders decided to flex like Cheney, we both know that Sanders would be impotent in a Paul presidency.
Click to expand...

Sadly, Sanders seems to be pretty impotent on a lot of issues.
 
And Ron Paul's arguments are literally a gravy covered shit sandwich you can eat.:roll:

Also, supporting Sanders on his own is different than supporting Sanders only IF he was campaigning with Paul, so you get absolutely no credit from me. Maybe someone else will so you can feel better about yourself.

Sanders being impotent is the same reason why Paul will never get the nomination. They're both politically impotent.
 
[quote name='Mike23']Any predictions for tonight?[/QUOTE]
If Mittens wins it is significant if he doesn't it is insignificant.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Of course saying that the market will take care of it is no answer at all.[/QUOTE]
I just don't know how any human being can believe that discrimination is fine so long as it's private property. In Paul's world we'd be right back to "no black allowed" signs on business windows. Actually I may be wrong, they'd either list every minority as not being welcomed or just say "whites only" to save time. Oh but the free market will fix it, just like it fixed it before.
 
[quote name='Clak']I thought you didn't consider yourself a conservative to begin with. bob.[/QUOTE]

I don't consider myself a Republican. Republican ≠ Conservative.

[quote name='dohdough']Also, supporting Sanders on his own is different than supporting Sanders only IF he was campaigning with Paul, so you get absolutely no credit from me.[/quote]

"You don't like him for the right reasons, therefore your opinion doesn't count."
It's a good thing I don't seek "credit" from you. I'm happily content without any sort of approval from you.

Sanders being impotent is the same reason why Paul will never get the nomination. They're both politically impotent.
Click to expand...

Yup. Probably the two most honest guys in Washington and no one cares.
 
[quote name='Clak']I just don't know how any human being can believe that discrimination is fine so long as it's private property. In Paul's world we'd be right back to "no black allowed" signs on business windows. Actually I may be wrong, they'd either list every minority as not being welcomed or just say "whites only" to save time. Oh but the free market will fix it, just like it fixed it before.[/QUOTE]

I don't think most people think it's "fine".

Personally, I find it morally repugnant. Just like I find smoking to be a sign of stupidity. Just like I believe anyone who forwards crappy chain e-mails is an idiot.

However, the huge difference here is where the government has the right to step in. I don't believe the government should be allowed to make moral decisions for us.

I know this is a very strange concept for some people (oddly, many being the same people who believe the government shouldn't have the right to force morality on the abortion issue)... but it's really simple. The right to choose who you wish to associate with=good. Making that choice based on skin color (gender, etc.)=bad.
 
[quote name='Clak']I just don't know how any human being can believe that discrimination is fine so long as it's private property. In Paul's world we'd be right back to "no black allowed" signs on business windows. Actually I may be wrong, they'd either list every minority as not being welcomed or just say "whites only" to save time. Oh but the free market will fix it, just like it fixed it before.[/QUOTE]

Only bigoted people can support that. They support property rights as they'd prefer to eat at white only establishments etc.

Smoking laws etc. are a different matter since there's not a discrimination angle. There is the health angle though with the harms of second hand smoke, people having allergies to smoke etc. So I tend to support smoking bans (though also for self interested reasons as I hate smoke and have some sinus issues that cause me problems with it).

That said, I'm not as steadfast on that anymore. It's really only an issue in white trash shitholes as pretty much every bar etc. in those kind of places has smoking if not banned. Where as the city I live in now has no ban, but there are still plenty of establishments that ban smoking on their own to frequent. It was nice when I was in DC and could go anywhere without worrying about smoking. But I'm ok with my current city as there are plenty of non-smoking places. Just sucks when a friend picks a new place and it ends up smoke filled. But I just suffer through it and never go back to that place again.
 
Don't you think it would be the same with whites only signs? I personally don't care either way, but at some point in time enough people will boycott said restaurant that it will be put out of business. I know that I definitely would never go back to a place with a whites only sign, I wouldn't even go in it.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Don't you think it would be the same with whites only signs? I personally don't care either way, but at some point in time enough people will boycott said restaurant that it will be put out of business. I know that I definitely would never go back to a place with a whites only sign, I wouldn't even go in it.[/QUOTE]

Problem is they'd probably mostly only be posted in places that were vastly majority white anyway, and thus not enough people would boycott to make a difference.

i.e. it will happen in bigoted, red neck towns where the establishment owner knows all their regulars are of the same mind and it has no real impact since the handful of minorities that live in that town never visited their establishment in the first place.
 
I fail to see what the problem would be then. If the establishment was already segregated without a sign, putting a sign there would suddenly make an unspoken fact a problem?

Also "Drudge" is doing their own "primary" right now if you feel like voting on it.
 
It's a matter of legitimizing segregation by it being legal to put up a sign and formally segregate your establishment.

That type of thing could undo a lot to undermine civil rights progress and reductions in overt racism. Just not the message I think we want to be sending in the 21st century by allowing that sort of thing.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I fail to see what the problem would be then. If the establishment was already segregated without a sign, putting a sign there would suddenly make an unspoken fact a problem?[/quote]
Because refusing to allow them to engage in economic activities is disenfranchisement. If those people of color are already in a racially hostile environment and more businesses follow suit, like groceries and gas stations, you've pretty much made their money worth less(not worthless) and almost useless. Which also means that they're working for less.

Also "Drudge" is doing their own "primary" right now if you feel like voting on it.
Click to expand...
I can't wait to see the final results.
 
denying rights to a group that you don't agree with = ok

good to know.

While a goofy Salon article, it does raise the point that a Ron Paul nomination would be the only one that causes a discussion on certain issues where Pres. Obama has lost his way. Love him or hate him, those discussions (and they would be limited to that as there aren't enough bat shit crazy people on the planet, let alone the country, to vote him in) would VERY GOOD for the country as it would essentially force Obama to push back on Bush III policies.

Like the article says, you can support a policy without supporting the politician. Better yet, you can support a candidate for the eventual debates without necessarily endorsing that candidate.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Because refusing to allow them to engage in economic activities[...][/QUOTE]

You're not refusing to allow anyone to engage in economic activities.

You're making a decision to refuse to engage with someone in economic activity.

There's a world of difference.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not really. It was mostly BS about them having WMDs and ties to al qaeda. Only when that started not to pan out, did they start spouting off about Husseins human rights abuses etc.

In any case, there wasn't any urgent, current humanitarian need to get him out of power in 2003 like there was with Libya last year with Gaddafi threatning to slaughter citizens.

If we wanted to oust Hussein for humanitarian reasons we should have acted in the 80s when he was loosing chemical weapons on Kurds etc.[/QUOTE]
But they did have wmd's. From my understanding of the war push, we got caught lying about them making more and selling them off.
 
I don't trust the media enough to think that a Paul nomination will lead to substantive and deep debates about serious issues.

I also don't trust Paul enough, but that aside, I most certainly don't trust David Gregory or whatever corporate friendly cretin they'd have lead the thing.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']But they did have wmd's. From my understanding of the war push, we got caught lying about them making more and selling them off.[/QUOTE]

No. We never found any WMDs that I'm aware of. The ones he had (chemical weapons etc.) I think all got disposed of after the first gulf war and all the sanctions and UN inspectors that followed.

During the build up to the war the UN inspectors found nothing, and the military never uncovered anything either.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're not refusing to allow anyone to engage in economic activities.

You're making a decision to refuse to engage with someone in economic activity.

There's a world of difference.[/QUOTE]

By putting up a white's only sign, that business is refusing to allow non-whites to engage in economic activities with their business.

As more places follow suit, non-whites have fewer and fewer options on where they can spend their money.

That is the problem.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']No. We never found any WMDs that I'm aware of.[/QUOTE]

Actually - some WMDs were found - mostly chemical weapons. All are believed to be from the 90's or earlier, none were really any major threat (some were in pretty unusable condition without some major overhaul). None of this existed in the same sphere of the Bush administration claims/beliefs though. None of it was sound reasoning for the war. There were WMDs found - but it was like searching for fireworks and finding some soggy sparklers.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']By putting up a white's only sign, that business is refusing to engage non-whites in economic activities with their business.[/quote]

Changed that wording a little bit.

It's not a matter of saying what "you" can or cannot do. It's a matter of saying what "I" will do.

As more places follow suit, non-whites have fewer and fewer options on where they can spend their money.
Click to expand...

Should Business A have any responsibility in any way, shape or form over decisions made by unrelated Business B?
 
By saying that you will not allow non-whites to shop in your store you are indeed telling all non whites what the can't do. You're telling them they cannot enter your business.

And I'm not saying business A has any responsibility to what other businesses do. Just that once one "no whites allowed" sign goes up and other bigoted business owners in the area see the storm blow over and that store possibly not lose business, that those other bigoted business owners will put up their own signs.

Anyway, not sure why I'm bothering with this. Anyone that thinks it's ok to allow businesses to discriminate on what customers can give them their patronage isn't worth debating with. And it's something that would never be allowed to happen in the US again anyway, so it's moot.
 
I'm getting Deja-Vu here...

With retail being as low as it is right now, wouldn't you want the broadest customer base possible? Even if you outright despise a certain race?

Would a Chipotle be able to put up a whites only customer sign and still function with hispanic employees?

Could you be more retarded by presenting coloured fountains as a possibility if ANYONE other than Barrack Obama is elected this year?

fucking A.

Yeah, it's unlikely that a Ron Paul nomination would result in the curtains being pulled back but you've got to admit that it's fun to imagine the cranky old coot having a nice bulletpoint presentation of "You said you were against this and continued it, you said you were for this but did next to nothing to accomplish said goal. What have you to say for yourself?" because that REALLY needs to happen. Like the article said, the left was all over Bush for not having a military record while Kerry did but then seemingly didn't care when the roles were reversed a la Obama and McCain as well as other examples.

It's gotten to the point where we don't care who is on the team, as long as the team wins. Even if the quarterback is a dick who roofies cheerleaders and doesn't bother to post pics.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
I can't wait to see the final results.[/QUOTE]

Just took a gander at the current results out of morbid curiosity....results are pretty much as expected.

Currently Paul is in the lead with 30.7% of the vote, Romney is 2nd with 24.6%, Santorum is 3rd with 17.4%, and Newt is 4th with 12.4%. All the others are in single digit percentages currently, so I won't bother typing them up.
 
[quote name='nasum']I'm getting Deja-Vu here...

With retail being as low as it is right now, wouldn't you want the broadest customer base possible? Even if you outright despise a certain race?

Would a Chipotle be able to put up a whites only customer sign and still function with hispanic employees?
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's absurd and as I noted only remotely feasible in some 99% white redneck shithole where it would have little practical impact anyway due to the tiny number of minorities present. Only impact it would have is just sending the wrong message by allowing it to happen. Any other areas business can't afford to exclude customers and potential employees.

But even that would never be allowed, so it's a pointless discussion. I'm just trying like made to keep procrastinating some work! Really should just give up and go home! :D
 
[quote name='Spokker']

The federal government is already being woefully inefficient on this issue. States have taken matters into their own hands.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/21092

But in any situation in which pollution is a problem, understand that the optimal amount of pollution is not zero. Economic activity will produce some amount of pollution, pollution that is very much harmful. And even if New Jersey's pollution harms New York, would New York's pollution not be harming some other state?

A good overview of how property rights can be used to solve matters of pollution is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

There are many problems with the theorem, but it represents a starting point on this subject. Citizens' groups often band together and fight polluters. In my region a bunch of homeowners are fighting the local commuter rail agency that provides a public transportation service across the region. The agency is voluntarily complying even though I don't think they have to. They just want to be a good neighbor I guess. I just wonder if fares are going to go up which are going to encourage more people to drive :)[/QUOTE]

The article about the federal government being inefficient on policing polluters was written during the Bush administration. So, it's not really surprisng that the EPA wasn't doing much at the time.

Sure, citizen groups can fight polluters, but that only happens after the damage is done. If NJ has very lax pollution regulations and the resulting air pollution ends up in NY, the New Yorkers wouldn't know until they're affected. And, what happens during the lengthy trial and appeal process? Do the New Yorkers have to just live with the pollution until its resolved?

I'm also not sure what the citizens would sue for. Medical bills? Loss of property value? Wouldn't it be better if the citizens (and their property) were just protected in the first place? Since pollution crosses state lines, the only way to protect citizens and their property from pollution is with federal regulations.
 
[quote name='nasum']I'm getting Deja-Vu here...

With retail being as low as it is right now, wouldn't you want the broadest customer base possible? Even if you outright despise a certain race?

Would a Chipotle be able to put up a whites only customer sign and still function with hispanic employees?

Could you be more retarded by presenting coloured fountains as a possibility if ANYONE other than Barrack Obama is elected this year?

fucking A.

Yeah, it's unlikely that a Ron Paul nomination would result in the curtains being pulled back but you've got to admit that it's fun to imagine the cranky old coot having a nice bulletpoint presentation of "You said you were against this and continued it, you said you were for this but did next to nothing to accomplish said goal. What have you to say for yourself?" because that REALLY needs to happen. Like the article said, the left was all over Bush for not having a military record while Kerry did but then seemingly didn't care when the roles were reversed a la Obama and McCain as well as other examples.
[/QUOTE]

A Ron Paul vs. Obama election race would be fun... also I trust none of the other Republican candidates.

People who say that Ron Paul's election would lead to the resurgence of segregation are not thinking logically...

It's gotten to the point where we don't care who is on the team, as long as the team wins. Even if the quarterback is a dick who roofies cheerleaders and doesn't bother to post pics.
Click to expand...
This is a huge problem. On the one hand, the majority of people who follow politics blindly support their side. On the other hand, the average Joe has no idea what is going on economically/politically and is more concerned about Facebook, Twitter, iTunes, the NFL, and what the Kardashian's are up to... our populace, on average, is not very bright... hopefully, most of those people decide not to vote.
 
I've been watching Fox News... they absolutely hate Ron Paul... more than even Obama...

However, they are stating how it will be close at the top and that up to 5 candidates may emerge from the fray. It looks like they are trying to soften the blow for their favorite son, Romney. Seems like good news for Ron Paul. We'll see what happens.

It's funny to see those weasels, Bill Kristol and Karl Rove, trying to navigate their way through this...
 
[quote name='nasum']
With retail being as low as it is right now, wouldn't you want the broadest customer base possible? Even if you outright despise a certain race?
[/QUOTE]
This is what it would come down to. Discrimination is unprofitable under Becker's theory of discrimination. A profitable business can discriminate, but they will take a financial hit. margins being what they are, I doubt a lot of businesses could absorb that. The understanding of this concept in the modern world would take care of a lot of discrimination.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Only bigoted people can support that. They support property rights as they'd prefer to eat at white only establishments etc.[/QUOTE]
I don't prefer to eat at white-only establishments. If I didn't want to live around brown people I would move my half-brown ass somewhere else.

Anyway, latest news: "Early results of CNN Iowa entrance poll: First tier is Paul, Romney, Santorum. Actual votes, projections within the hour."

Surprised they didn't say "Shit Tier: Gingrich, Bachmann, Huntsman."

And look at this guy ironing the flag. I don't know why I find it funny: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/03/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE7BT14220120103
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Romney/Santorum/Paul vying for the top?

Wow, Romney has already all but wrapped up the candidacy. Politico was right.[/QUOTE]

I noticed a lot of the college counties I know of are already in. I think third is going to Paul tonight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand the appeal behind Rick or Mitt? What are they going to bring to the table that's different or better than Obama?
We were fooled with that hope & change crap.
 
[quote name='lilboo']I don't understand the appeal behind Rick or Mitt? What are they going to bring to the table that's different or better than Obama?
We were fooled with that hope & change crap.[/QUOTE]

I didn't vote for Barry but honestly I think most Democratic voters just disliked the idea of war with Iran in 2009.
 
Where did Santorum come from all of a sudden? Polling of his supporters indicates that abortion is their number one issue. Did they just go with Santorum at the least minute without checking him out?
 
[quote name='Spokker']Where did Santorum come from all of a sudden? Polling of his supporters indicates that abortion is their number one issue. Did they just go with Santorum at the least minute without checking him out?[/QUOTE]

Santorum started spewing racist dog whistles and was duly rewarded.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Santorum started spewing racist dog whistles and was duly rewarded.[/QUOTE]
Polling shows his supporters care most about abortion. Something like 53% said it was their number 1 issue in some polls while other candidates had a good mix of foreign policy and economic priorities.

But racist dog whistles is a good one. I had not heard that term before. It's very much consistent with this idea of covert or unconscious racism or whatever the hell the white guilt pushers are selling.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Santorum started spewing racist dog whistles and was duly rewarded.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on, what's racist about having commercial that says you'll win the war on Islam?
 
[quote name='Spokker']Where did Santorum come from all of a sudden? Polling of his supporters indicates that abortion is their number one issue. Did they just go with Santorum at the least minute without checking him out?[/QUOTE]

I still haven't figured this one out yet... he was a non-factor, then all of the sudden a couple of weeks ago, every news outlet started propagating the meme that Santorum is surging... it is some sort of scam... I haven't looked into this enough to discover the ulterior motive behind it.

I still don't get why people consider abortion and various other social issues to be so important right now... Do they not realize that we are on the golden path to financial ruin, involved in multiple pointless/endless wars (against terrorists and against our citizens), and are losing more of our liberties with each day?
 
People that are primarily concerned with, and voting based on, BS social issues generally aren't well educated enough to understand issues like the economy, international politics etc. anyway.

So they just latch onto the conservative who's against abortion or whatever and also spouting off BS that the economic mess is the fault of democrats and he/she will fix that too!
 
[quote name='BigT']I still haven't figured this one out yet... he was a non-factor, then all of the sudden a couple of weeks ago, every news outlet started propagating the meme that Santorum is surging... it is some sort of scam... I haven't looked into this enough to discover the ulterior motive behind it.

I still don't get why people consider abortion and various other social issues to be so important right now... Do they not realize that we are on the golden path to financial ruin, involved in multiple pointless/endless wars (against terrorists and against our citizens), and are losing more of our liberties with each day?[/QUOTE]

Wasn't even a couple weeks ago. The surge started this last Wednesday.

It's completely unsustainable, though. Santorum is as much a believer in activist government as Gingrich or Romney. Was also nominated as the most corrupt member of Congress by CREW in 2006.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top