There's a big difference between ensuring equal treatment of all people under the gov't's domain when dealing with said gov't, and trying to regulate private interactions among private citizens. Also, elevating groups ABOVE others to ensure equality seems rather odd, no? The whole "hate crime" bullcrap is nonsense. A murderer's motive for premeditated killing and who his victim is should not matter in dealing out punishment. Once you make the same laws apply to all people, the gov't's job is done. Who's beating and killing black people with impunity today? Maybe just....the gov't.
Say what you want about silk, but he at least responds to criticism and doesn't hide behind the ignore function as far as I know.
I also wanted to make sure cancerman knew that I am aware of the Civil Rights Acts that are on the books. I'm saying that the ones concerning private citizens and private property are crap when viewed by someone who supports personal freedom and liberty. Outlawing racism and hatred is like outlawing ignorance and stupidity. It is pointless, ineffective, and waaay out of the gov't's scope of power when it concerns the PRIVATE world.
You want the gov't to be able to tell you who you can rent to, yet not be able to tell a person on welfare what junk foods they can't buy with tax payer money.....ooooookkkkkkk:roll:
Hmmm...giving black people the same benefits and resources that they were previously excluded from is somehow putting them ABOVE whites that continue to have the same benefits and resources. Yeah ok. Tell me more about how blacks(Latinos and Southeast Asians for that matter) are getting put so far ahead of whites that they're taking over all yer jubz from whitey.
There's a difference between targeting individuals and targeting groups. Do you think that there should be no difference in the classification between people that rape adults and children? How about punishments?
There's also a difference between the government telling someone that they can't not rent to someone else for reasons x, y, z and telling someone that they HAVE to rent to someone for reasons a, b, c and x, y, z. But I guess since the devil is in the details, you try to shy away from them. edit: This isn't even taking into account that reasons d through w are perfectly valid to refuse someone service.
But since you're living high on the hog off the government teat and mah taxez, I'd like to know if you're wasting tax payer money while posting on the internet instead of doing something more productive like...I dunno...actually working.
Let me school you once again. When I talked about Sweden, I mentioned that they only prospered under free market reforms and economically declined when socialists took over. I explained that to you and even gave some concrete examples.
I never said shareholders were immune from financial risks. What I did say is that they were not penalized like a an employee or CEO would. For example if CEO does a piss poor job then he would be fired. Simple as that.
Again if you fail to grasp this information then I am sorry. Try taking an econ class.
In reality it seems only people on the left are trolling on these forums. The conservatives actually try and defend their points. I am not saying all of you are the same, Dohdough actually argues his points but in the end fails miserably.
The reason why it is so hard to have a good discussion is because you people either personally attack another member, post useless comments or make worst assumptions of us when we disagree instead of trying to actually process what we say.
LOLZ...and when I brought up that Sweden still had better social safety nets, unique circumstances pre and post WW2, the loosening of regulations causing a real estate bubble, and partially nationalizing the banks, all I heard were mantras about FREE MARKET REFORMS and bagging on Hollande.
Lemme refresh your memory on what you said exactly:
If by "penalized," you mean getting a golden parachute, then you'd not only be pedantic, but correct.
And LOLZ at taking an econ class. Sorry buddy, but I made it a little further past the concept of supply and demand, so maybe you should take econ 101 again. Or maybe you can tell me how good of an econ student you were and even tutored your classmates while currently forgetting almost everything you learned. Yeah, that's the ticket.
I fail because you think I'm trying to convince you? Dude, your epistemic closure is locked up so tight that you can't even stay logically consistent in one post. Must be easier for you to make passive aggressive insults instead of reason, I suppose. Nebulous and loaded terms like "freedom" and "liberty" to McGuffin your way into and out of a debate isn't exactly "defending their post."
Eh, it goes both ways, I see people on both sides in this forum trolling. The problem is that both groups are pretty entrenched in their positions, so it's just really mostly yelling at each other.
To be fair, the signal to noise ratio between the ideological factions aren't exactly equal nor is the actual quality of knowledge. I'm far from innocent of making snide remarks, but even when it comes to insults, there's a pretty huge disparity in quality and tone.
mykevermin and others, I hope you appreciate me not breaking your ignore features.