Hahaha...yeah...Letters of Marque are so much better and cheaper..except when they're not.
In a Ron Paul world there would still be a federal government.
And who's going to regulate how a manufacturer labels their product? Especially with no FDA?
It turns out when you tell them a product is poison, they still want it. Sounds reasonable to me.
Uh huh...all those red states are going to do great! How the is it cheaper and more efficient to be poisoned and have to sue if a company fucks up?
But it has never been about "doing whatever you want." There are avenues of recourse to take when someone poisons you. This is why we have property rights and why we have courts and all that.
Hahaha...holy shit. Do you think I'm a moron or something? When it comes to Jim Crow, black people are hardly in any kind of position to exercise institutional power upon white people.
As if whites are the only ones who wish to discriminate. As if whites are the only ones who support government bans on gay marriage, for example. Whites are now evenly divided on gay marriage. Blacks continue to heavily oppose it. I'm pretty sure they support the right of a state (CA) to pass a ban on gay marriage (Prop 8). Exit polls back this assertion up. Sounds like states' rights to me.
As for Prop 8...LOLZ...How cute! Yeah...let's talk about those exit poll numbers. Black voters were polled at 70% against same-sex marriage...quite a high number because it's more than the 49% of whites that were also against it. Let's look at how many people actually voted: whites represent 63% and black people represent 10%. Now, let's put those numbers together. If half of white voters for Prop 8, that means they represent about 31% of the votes against people that were against it. Black people represent 10% of the total vote and voted 70% for Prop 8, which comes out to 7% of the total vote. Black voters have a part to play, but white voters outnumbered them 6 to 1. I'd be more concerned about the 4,000,000+ white people against same-sex marriage than the 650,000 black people against it.
What does this mean? Well, two important things can be gleaned from this. The first is the point above, but the second, and just as important that's a little more related to your argument, is that being subjected to generational discrimination doesn't mean that you'll be more empathetic to other oppressed people...kinda like what I was saying about intra-racial conflict in other posts.
Sounds like state's rights wut?
Edited by dohdough, 21 February 2012 - 06:45 AM.