The Popular Vote

[ClydeR]

Trump is preoccupied that Clinton won the popular vote. He should shrug it off and stop obsessing over it. Otherwise, people will use it against him by always mentioning it.




http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/trump_tweets-election122116_zpsmobjrl2z.png

[Geijon Khyree]

One term President. I wonder of he'll break records for margin of loss next time.

[Enuch]

That's if he runs again, after four years he may be over it.

[Thondalar]

One term President. I wonder of he'll break records for margin of loss next time.

Everyone assumed that would be the case this time.

[Candor]

That's if he runs again, after four years he may be over it.

I believe he will not want a second term. We'll see.

[Parkbandit]

One term President. I wonder of he'll break records for margin of loss next time.

He beat your girl's ass.

[Thondalar]

This whole popular vote vs. Electoral vote really isn't worth all of this debate. Until it is changed, the point is rather moot.

To change it, you'd need a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate, assuming you could even get everyone to show up for the vote to have a quorum. Once you accomplish that monumental feat, you'd need to get 38 States to pass it, either via legislature or convention.

I really doubt we'll ever see this happen. The smaller states just aren't going to ever agree to it. Stupid Republic!

[Parkbandit]

This whole popular vote vs. Electoral vote really isn't worth all of this debate. Until it is changed, the point is rather moot.

To change it, you'd need a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate, assuming you could even get everyone to show up for the vote to have a quorum. Once you accomplish that monumental feat, you'd need to get 38 States to pass it, either via legislature or convention.

I really doubt we'll ever see this happen. The smaller states just aren't going to ever agree to it. Stupid Republic!

It's just a crutch for the loser of the election.. some small "victory" to hold onto and not really worry about WHY you lost the election.

I think they should dwell on that instead of the real issues of the Democrat Party.

[Geijon Khyree]

PK. This never had anything to do with Clinton with me. You're just such a worthless fuck to read anything beyond your own verbal diarehha.

[Parkbandit]

PK. This never had anything to do with Clinton with me. You're just such a worthless fuck to read anything beyond your own verbal diarehha.

Irony.

[Androidpk]

PK. This never had anything to do with Clinton with me. You're just such a worthless fuck to read anything beyond your own verbal diarehha.

ok

[Methais]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/519NKBB2FXL.jpg

[Gelston]

http://theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/what-difference-does-it-make-meme-generator-what-difference-does-it-make-ee8d52_zps7f4cd1051.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/519NKBB2FXL.jpg

We have that book lol

[Latrinsorm]

Everyone assumed that would be the case this time.Not true (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-could-win-the-white-house-while-losing-the-popular-vote/). One of Nate Silver's favorite phrases, permeating his entire website, was (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-north-carolina-is-becoming-a-backstop-for-clinton/) Midwestern (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-really-really-needs-to-win-florida/) collapse (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/should-clinton-play-for-an-electoral-college-landslide/). The exact scenario that occurred was forecast many times - not the most likely outcome, but far from inconceivable.
This whole popular vote vs. Electoral vote really isn't worth all of this debate. Until it is changed, the point is rather moot.It's not a debate about popular vs. electoral. It's a debate about who won the popular vote. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/19/half-republicans-think-trump-won-popular-vote-clinton-won-286m/95612570/)

[Spirit Wolf]

They should do a recount in NY, Cali and Illinois. Wanna make a bet after all the illegal immigrant votes are thrown out Trump would have won the popular?

[Soulance]

They should do a recount in NY, Cali and Illinois. Wanna make a bet after all the illegal immigrant votes are thrown out Trump would have won the popular?
Yea, Illinois is a joke and I'm even more of one for still living here.

[Gelston]

Yea, Illinois is a joke and I'm even more of one for still living here.

You shouldn't acknowledge shill accounts.

[~Rocktar~]

Yea, Illinois is a joke and I'm even more of one for still living here.

Yeah, Illinois is bankrupt, they can't even pay the medical insurance claims for state workers. They are something like a year and a half behind.

[Neveragain]

I find it amazing that people even consider the idea of wanting to change BACK to a popular vote. More than half the country is to stupid to vote at all, more than half of the ones who do vote are voting for who looks the coolest. You think Trump is bad.....

[Spirit Wolf]

I find it amazing that people even consider the idea of wanting to change BACK to a popular vote. More than half the country is to stupid to vote at all, more than half of the ones who do vote are voting for who looks the coolest. You think Trump is bad.....

Popular vote would be a bad idea. I do think that the Electoral College should be reformed though. The way Electors are selected is corrupt and seems like it would be a conflict of interest.

[time4fun]

Popular vote would be a bad idea. I do think that the Electoral College should be reformed though. The way Electors are selected is corrupt and seems like it would be a conflict of interest.

Please explain to me why the popular vote is bad. Why we should be electing Presidents with fewer votes than the person they are running against?

[Tiz]

Argument on the other side is valid too. North Dakota is never going to be as big as California. Does that mean we should always ignore the votes of North Dakotans because they live in a less desired part of the country? Electoral college smooths the population discrepancy out a bit, right or wrong.

[Neveragain]

Please explain to me why the popular vote is bad. Why we should be electing Presidents with fewer votes than the person they are running against?

Because it would be moving backwards, it's been tried before like a long fucking time ago. It's a stone age system just like centralized government. The word regressive comes to mind.

[Wrathbringer]

Please explain to me why the popular vote is bad. Why we should be electing Presidents with fewer votes than the person they are running against?

You're not seriously this retarded irl, right?

[Methais]

Please explain to me why the popular vote is bad. Why we should be electing Presidents with fewer votes than the person they are running against?

Please explain how 2-3 states deciding elections and the other 47-48 having no voice is a good thing.

Please also explain why the World Series isn't determined by the total runs scored instead of first to win 4 games.

Why is the winner of chess not determined by who has the most pieces left on the board?

Why isn't football determined by total yardage instead of points?

If Trump won the popular vote but Hillary won the election you'd be talking about how the Electoral College is doing its job and is the most ingenious system ever and that anyone advocating for the popular vote is a sore loser and an idiot.

[time4fun]

Argument on the other side is valid too. North Dakota is never going to be as big as California. Does that mean we should always ignore the votes of North Dakotans because they live in a less desired part of the country? Electoral college smooths the population discrepancy out a bit, right or wrong.

Actually, popular vote means your vote is always worth the same as someone else's. Right now, a republican vote in CA is worth less than a republican vote in Idaho.

The Electoral College is what makes one person's vote matter more or less than another's based solely on the state they live in. The popular vote is what smoothes things out.

The only reason why Conservatives don't like popular vote is that they know they aren't the popular party nationally.

[Wrathbringer]

Actually, popular vote means your vote is always worth the same as someone else's. Right now, a republican vote in CA is worth less than a republican vote in Idaho.

The Electoral College is what makes one person's vote matter more or less than another's based solely on the state they live in. The popular vote is what smoothes things out.

The only reason why Conservatives don't like popular vote is that they know they aren't the popular party nationally.

/clowns

[Warriorbird]

Neither party will ever get rid of the Electoral College.

[Latrinsorm]

Please explain how 2-3 states deciding elections and the other 47-48 having no voice is a good thing.The 2016 election was decided by three states. If that really was your criterion for a bad system, you would be opposed to the electoral college too. You're not, so it is not your criterion for a bad system, it is just a rationalization.
Please also explain why the World Series isn't determined by the total runs scored instead of first to win 4 games.Because the World Series is not analogous to an election.
Why is the winner of chess not determined by who has the most pieces left on the board?Because chess is not analogous to an election.
Why isn't football determined by total yardage instead of points?Because football is not analogous to an election.
If Trump won the popular vote but Hillary won the election you'd be talking about how the Electoral College is doing its job and is the most ingenious system ever and that anyone advocating for the popular vote is a sore loser and an idiot.As it turns out, Democrats' opinion on the electoral college has been far more stable than Republicans', even though the electoral college has favored different parties to differing degrees over time. It is easy to assume that the two parties are simply labels for equally opposite reactions, but easy assumptions do not always turn out to be true.

[Stumplicker]

http://i.imgur.com/VKqTnsc.png

[Spirit Wolf]

Please explain to me why the popular vote is bad. Why we should be electing Presidents with fewer votes than the person they are running against?

Because all it would take to win would be to win San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City. Since those cities are Marxist shit holes that would make the rest of the country a Marxist shit hole Dystopia.

[Androidpk]

The popular vote isn't bad. The electoral college isn't bad.

[~Rocktar~]

The popular vote is bad, the Electoral College is less bad.

[Androidpk]

The popular vote is bad, the Electoral College is less bad.

In that case what is good and what is double good? Are we there yet?

[~Rocktar~]

In that case what is good and what is double good? Are we there yet?

So far, nothing better has come along so I don't know what is good, double good would be letting me be king of the world and ridding TV of feminine hygiene and hemorrhoid product commercials.

[zennsunni]

Because all it would take to win would be to win San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City. Since those cities are Marxist shit holes that would make the rest of the country a Marxist shit hole Dystopia.

I love it when the rednecks bash on places like SF and NYC, i.e. the motors of our country's financial and technological dominance, as well as the educational centers of our great country. With a few notable exceptions like Univ. of Chicago, and Northwestern, the vast majority of the top tier universities in the U.S. are in these, what did you call them? Marxist shit holes?

Furthermore, you obviously don't know anything whatsoever about Marxism, so I'm gonna clue you in - calling a place like San Francicso, an entire city of one percenters, 'Marxist', is accomplishing nothing aside from trumpeting your ignorance and stupidity.

[Stumplicker]

With a few notable exceptions like Univ. of Chicago

You can't see me right now, but I'm flipping you the double bird at the monitor.

Everything else you said it spot on though, of course.

Edit: Wait, unless you're saying that Northwestern and the University of Chicago are indeed top tier Universities. Because they are. It's confusing, because the quote you responded to mentions Chicago, but your response might be referencing NYC and SF specifically with those exceptions. If only I had gone to some sort of top tier university that would give me the skills to reason through such a difficult problem...

....whatever.

The point is, the University of Chicago is -awesome-. It's where fun goes to die.

[Neveragain]

I love it when the rednecks bash on places like SF and NYC, i.e. the motors of our country's financial and technological dominance, as well as the educational centers of our great country. With a few notable exceptions like Univ. of Chicago, and Northwestern, the vast majority of the top tier universities in the U.S. are in these, what did you call them? Marxist shit holes?

Furthermore, you obviously don't know anything whatsoever about Marxism, so I'm gonna clue you in - calling a place like San Francicso, an entire city of one percenters, 'Marxist', is accomplishing nothing aside from trumpeting your ignorance and stupidity.

Wow, you just disregarded some of the best schools in the world, ranging from medical schools to agricultural. Hell you even tossed out the university where the first computer was developed. You also failed to mention how shitty the public schools are in your jungles of reason.

[Gelston]

I love it when the rednecks bash on places like SF and NYC, i.e. the motors of our country's financial and technological dominance, as well as the educational centers of our great country. With a few notable exceptions like Univ. of Chicago, and Northwestern, the vast majority of the top tier universities in the U.S. are in these, what did you call them? Marxist shit holes?

Furthermore, you obviously don't know anything whatsoever about Marxism, so I'm gonna clue you in - calling a place like San Francicso, an entire city of one percenters, 'Marxist', is accomplishing nothing aside from trumpeting your ignorance and stupidity.

Translation: You are all stupid rednecks, your opinion doesn't matter. Those two cities are the best places in the world and should be the only places that have a say in Government.

[Lulfas]

Because all it would take to win would be to win San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City. Since those cities are Marxist shit holes that would make the rest of the country a Marxist shit hole Dystopia.

Would be so much better if everywhere looked like Kansas!

[Neveragain]

Would be so much better if everywhere looked like Kansas!

A chunk of one of the best land deals made in human history, made by a Republican I might add.

[Gelston]

A chunk of one of the best land deals made in human history, made by a Republican I might add.

There was no Republicans back then.

[Spirit Wolf]

I love it when the rednecks bash on places like SF and NYC, i.e. the motors of our country's financial and technological dominance, as well as the educational centers of our great country. With a few notable exceptions like Univ. of Chicago, and Northwestern, the vast majority of the top tier universities in the U.S. are in these, what did you call them? Marxist shit holes?

Furthermore, you obviously don't know anything whatsoever about Marxism, so I'm gonna clue you in - calling a place like San Francicso, an entire city of one percenters, 'Marxist', is accomplishing nothing aside from trumpeting your ignorance and stupidity.

I should have added Detroit...sooooo sorry. LMAO
Funny, cause I could have sworn places like North Dakota and Texas where where the economy was booming. Isn't California, Illinois and New York on the verge of Bankruptcy? Not to mention the population is leaving to go places like Texas and Florida. Tsk tsk, Everyone who you don't like is a redneck now? Got something against Miners and Farmers huh?
Add that to this list:
8288

[m444w]

Wow, you just disregarded some of the best schools in the world, ranging from medical schools to agricultural. Hell you even tossed out the university where the first computer was developed. You also failed to mention how shitty the public schools are in your jungles of reason.

The first mechanical computer (Difference Engine) was invented in London, the first programmable computer the (Z1) was invented in Germany, and the first electronic computer (ENAIC) was in Philadelphia.

None of these places are primarily Republican

[Spirit Wolf]

The first mechanical computer (Difference Engine) was invented in London, the first programmable computer the (Z1) was invented in Germany, and the first electronic computer (ENAIC) was in Philadelphia.

None of these places are primarily Republican

Before 1952 Philadelphia was a Republican stronghold. ENAIC was made in 1943. So......

[~Rocktar~]

Illinois IS bankrupt.

[Spirit Wolf]

The first mechanical computer (Difference Engine) was invented in London, the first programmable computer the (Z1) was invented in Germany, and the first electronic computer (ENAIC) was in Philadelphia.

None of these places are primarily Republican

Also, the Difference Engine was created well before Modern Liberalism(Marxism) or Modern Conservatism so this doesn't quite help your argument either.
The Z1 was created in Nazi Germany, so if Liberals are now claiming the progress of the Nazis, by all means go for it if you think associating with Nazis helps your case :)

[Neveragain]

There was no Republicans back then.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, by name you're right though.

[Gelston]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, by name you're right though.

You can disagree all you want, but you'd be wrong. Both parties descend from the Democratic-Republican party, which Thomas Jefferson was. The parties didn't exist upon the same lines back then as they do today. It was state vs federal more. You could just as easily say it was a democrat that was in charge of getting that deal through, hell the democrats stuck more with the original ideals of the Democratic-Republican party in the first place, up and through the Civil War.

[Neveragain]

The first mechanical computer (Difference Engine) was invented in London, the first programmable computer the (Z1) was invented in Germany, and the first electronic computer (ENAIC) was in Philadelphia.

None of these places are primarily Republican

http://https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Vincent_Atanasoff

[Neveragain]

You can disagree all you want, but you'd be wrong. Both parties descend from the Democratic-Republican party, which Thomas Jefferson was. The parties didn't exist upon the same lines back then as they do today. It was state vs federal more. You could jsut as easily say it was a democrat that was in charge of getting that deal through.

I'M agreeing on the party not existing in name, but the nature of Jefferson was libertarian at the very least.

[Warriorbird]

I'M agreeing on the party not existing in name, but the nature of Jefferson was libertarian at the very least.

Slavery and the Embargo Act tend to stand somewhat against that view.

[Gelston]

I'M agreeing on the party not existing in name, but the nature of Jefferson was libertarian at the very least.

So now you are saying he is a Libertarian and not a Republican? Make up your mind. On paper, truth and fact, the Democrat Party is the one that stayed closest to the ideas of the Democrat-Republican Party. Decentralization was one of the key issues. Which party was the South leading up to the Civil War?

Either way, you're proclamation saying Jefferson was a Republican is 100% incorrect. You can say he was a Democratic-Republican and be correct.


Slavery and the Embargo Act tend to stand somewhat against that view.

Pft, minor details.

[Ardwen]

Clearly we need to bring back the Whig party!

[Gelston]

Clearly we need to bring back the Whig party!

That'd be the Republican Party, well, it is what the Republican Party directly descended from.

[Neveragain]

Slavery and the Embargo Act tend to stand somewhat against that view.

The embargo act was an attempt to keep the US out of a war between France and Britain.

The slavery bullshit is such a cop out, common practice through human history, including white European and American slaves in Africa at the same period as America was working towards ending slavery.

[Ardwen]

Yeah except the whole the represent something totally different then the original Whigs did, hey lets make it the Wig party! If ya aren't in drag ya can't run on their ticket!

[Gelston]

Yeah except the whole the represent something totally different then the original Whigs did, hey lets make it the Wig party! If ya aren't in drag ya can't run on their ticket!

The majority of the issues that occupied the foundation of parties back then don't really exist as heavily in the forefront anymore, at this day and age anyways. It is really impossible to compare a party now, be it Democrats or Republicans, to any party that existed in the 1800s. All we have is lineages.

[Ardwen]

Oh sure ignore the important crossdressing part of the platform

[Gelston]

Oh sure ignore the important crossdressing part of the platform

Those were man wigs pal. They looked fabulous.

I went to court in Scotland once, they wear wigs there still. You're supposed to say m'Lord to the judge, but I said Sir, because I'm an American goddamn it.

[Androidpk]

You don't say sir to American judges :|

[Gelston]

You don't say sir to American judges :|

I speak however I want to a Judge. This is America goddamn it.

[Stumplicker]

I'M agreeing on the party not existing in name, but the nature of Jefferson was libertarian at the very least.

It's easy to consider a 200 year old President "libertarian" when the vast majority of the population during his Presidency were illiterate, poverty stricken farmers without access to education or healthcare, socialized or otherwise, and the richest of the farms that allowed access to rise above that were run by slave labor which blocked the access for the aforementioned poverty stricken to rise above their station. Jefferson shrunk the Army and the Navy, yes. He advocated a frugal government. He slashed everything to the bone. 3 years later, we were absolutely demolished in a shitkicking war with proto-canada and the White House burned to the ground. And that's when we started realizing that some government is in fact necessary to progress through industrialization, abolitionism, literacy, education and technological advancement. Oh, and defense. In fact, Jefferson realized the need for more regulation far sooner than that as most of his work in favor of technological advancement and minority rights were total failures based on the fact that all the "good jobs" of the time that would allow a person to rise above were taken by slaves, whose racial inferiority precluded from becoming citizens. This prevented the new technologies he advocated from moving into the households of the nation as he wanted because he underestimated the need for women and children to work in the factories due to lack of education, lack of of abolition, lack of job availability, and lack of wage regulation. He wanted to be on the bleeding edge of technology, but failed because we hadn't yet started regulating business practices in any way, shape, or form.

Jefferson did a lot of good things, treatment of Native Americans and African Americans excepted, but his shrinking of government, what you would consider the "Libertarian" aspect of his vision, directly contributed to getting our country nearly unmade in the War of 1812. It was a mistake that was fixed, not a brilliant strategy to look up to.

[Methais]

You don't say sir to American judges :|

You said Your Judgeness.

[Gelston]

You said Your Judgeness.

No, you say "Up yours Jerk" and then walk with the bailiff into a holding cell.

[Wrathbringer]

Slavery and the Embargo Act tend to stand somewhat against that view.

I think it's funny that you act like you know things.

[Spirit Wolf]

Clearly we need to bring back the Whig party!

Already is back. Modern Whig Party started in 2007. http://www.modernwhig.org/

I think what this country needs to do is abolish parties. All they do is polarize and divide. Also without political parties it would force politicians to run as their own person rather than on a party platform and the voters would be forced to actually use their brain to do research for once. Would you still have ideologues and division? Sure, but I think people would be more willing to discuss their differences rather than resort to tribalism like what has been happening.

[Neveragain]

It's easy to consider a 200 year old President "libertarian" when the vast majority of the population during his Presidency were illiterate, poverty stricken farmers without access to education or healthcare, socialized or otherwise, and the richest of the farms that allowed access to rise above that were run by slave labor which blocked the access for the aforementioned poverty stricken to rise above their station. Jefferson shrunk the Army and the Navy, yes. He advocated a frugal government. He slashed everything to the bone. 3 years later, we were absolutely demolished in a shitkicking war with proto-canada and the White House burned to the ground. And that's when we started realizing that some government is in fact necessary to progress through industrialization, abolitionism, literacy, education and technological advancement. Oh, and defense. In fact, Jefferson realized the need for more regulation far sooner than that as most of his work in favor of technological advancement and minority rights were total failures based on the fact that all the "good jobs" of the time that would allow a person to rise above were taken by slaves, whose racial inferiority precluded from becoming citizens. This prevented the new technologies he advocated from moving into the households of the nation as he wanted because he underestimated the need for women and children to work in the factories due to lack of education, lack of of abolition, lack of job availability, and lack of wage regulation. He wanted to be on the bleeding edge of technology, but failed because we hadn't yet started regulating business practices in any way, shape, or form.

Jefferson did a lot of good things, treatment of Native Americans and African Americans excepted, but his shrinking of government, what you would consider the "Libertarian" aspect of his vision, directly contributed to getting our country nearly unmade in the War of 1812. It was a mistake that was fixed, not a brilliant strategy to look up to.

I'm not sure where you come to the conclusion that he shrunk our military, it wasn't until multiple efforts by Jefferson to convince Congress to allocate money's to rebuild our navy to end the tribute demands made by the Barbary states of northern Africa. Adams wanted to continue with ransom payments.

[Parkbandit]

It's easy to consider a 200 year old President "libertarian" when the vast majority of the population during his Presidency were illiterate, poverty stricken farmers without access to education or healthcare, socialized or otherwise, and the richest of the farms that allowed access to rise above that were run by slave labor which blocked the access for the aforementioned poverty stricken to rise above their station. Jefferson shrunk the Army and the Navy, yes. He advocated a frugal government. He slashed everything to the bone. 3 years later, we were absolutely demolished in a shitkicking war with proto-canada and the White House burned to the ground. And that's when we started realizing that some government is in fact necessary to progress through industrialization, abolitionism, literacy, education and technological advancement. Oh, and defense. In fact, Jefferson realized the need for more regulation far sooner than that as most of his work in favor of technological advancement and minority rights were total failures based on the fact that all the "good jobs" of the time that would allow a person to rise above were taken by slaves, whose racial inferiority precluded from becoming citizens. This prevented the new technologies he advocated from moving into the households of the nation as he wanted because he underestimated the need for women and children to work in the factories due to lack of education, lack of of abolition, lack of job availability, and lack of wage regulation. He wanted to be on the bleeding edge of technology, but failed because we hadn't yet started regulating business practices in any way, shape, or form.

Jefferson did a lot of good things, treatment of Native Americans and African Americans excepted, but his shrinking of government, what you would consider the "Libertarian" aspect of his vision, directly contributed to getting our country nearly unmade in the War of 1812. It was a mistake that was fixed, not a brilliant strategy to look up to.

lolwut?

[crb]

Libertarian as a label did not exist back then. Jefferson was a liberal.

Liberal is a subjective label that depends on context. A modern liberal would not own slaves, but considering the times he lived in, Jefferson was a liberal, he was a liberal for his era.

What is a liberal? Someone who believes in liberty above all things, obviously.

Labels change though, and are perverted, and coopted. In the late 1800s a new movement called progressivism came about, with decided illiberal goals. It championed things like unions, and the minimum wage, and eugenics, to protect good white man jobs from freed slaves, immigrants, and women wanting to take them, it wasn't about freedom, but restrictions.

Eventually, during the 1900s, this changed, slowly, the left continued to be generally racist, the right not, as a vestige of the civil war. Going through to the 1960s where The Civil Rights Act had more Republican support than Democrat. This is why you had such recent racists in the Democratic party such as Al Gore's daddy and Robert Byrd (HRC's mentor, so she said). But you had this morphing from progressivism, which was originally motivated by racist and xenophobic intentions, to what they called social liberalism, or social progressivism, which as opposed to the liberty ideal of classical liberalism, held up equality as the most important virtue. There were influences of course from other political philosophies at work as well, with this period being the heyday for the rise of socialism and communism.

Eventually the "liberal" label came to apply to the left in the USA (which is not the case worldwide, in other countries it still retain's its original meaning) even though they often promote illiberal policies. Reagan is partially at fault for this, he loved to use the term as a pejorative.

So we have this situation today where people call illiberal people, who are actually progressives (which has little to do with progress itself), liberals, and they call liberal people, such as say Rand Paul, Justin Amash, or Gary Johnson, conservative.

For instance, look at college campuses, at a "liberal" arts school called a "hotbed of liberalism" by some you will find student bodies advocating for restrictions on discourse and freedom of speech. This is not liberalism, they are not liberals.

About the same time that liberalism as a label was taken over by the progressive left and applied to illiberal policies, the actual liberals started calling themselves libertarians to differentiate themselves. So now we have a situation in our country where freedom loving classical liberals are called libertarians, and often illiberal social progressives are called liberals, and we had a presidential election where the guy who won advocated the illiberal policy of restricting immigrant based on religion, and the gal who lost advocated the illiberal policy of restricting freedom of speech.

[Thondalar]

Libertarian as a label did not exist back then. Jefferson was a liberal.

Liberal is a subjective label that depends on context. A modern liberal would not own slaves, but considering the times he lived in, Jefferson was a liberal, he was a liberal for his era.

What is a liberal? Someone who believes in liberty above all things, obviously.

Labels change though, and are perverted, and coopted. In the late 1800s a new movement called progressivism came about, with decided illiberal goals. It championed things like unions, and the minimum wage, and eugenics, to protect good white man jobs from freed slaves, immigrants, and women wanting to take them, it wasn't about freedom, but restrictions.

Eventually, during the 1900s, this changed, slowly, the left continued to be generally racist, the right not, as a vestige of the civil war. Going through to the 1960s where The Civil Rights Act had more Republican support than Democrat. This is why you had such recent racists in the Democratic party such as Al Gore's daddy and Robert Byrd (HRC's mentor, so she said). But you had this morphing from progressivism, which was originally motivated by racist and xenophobic intentions, to what they called social liberalism, or social progressivism, which as opposed to the liberty ideal of classical liberalism, held up equality as the most important virtue. There were influences of course from other political philosophies at work as well, with this period being the heyday for the rise of socialism and communism.

Eventually the "liberal" label came to apply to the left in the USA (which is not the case worldwide, in other countries it still retain's its original meaning) even though they often promote illiberal policies. Reagan is partially at fault for this, he loved to use the term as a pejorative.

So we have this situation today where people call illiberal people, who are actually progressives (which has little to do with progress itself), liberals, and they call liberal people, such as say Rand Paul, Justin Amash, or Gary Johnson, conservative.

For instance, look at college campuses, at a "liberal" arts school called a "hotbed of liberalism" by some you will find student bodies advocating for restrictions on discourse and freedom of speech. This is not liberalism, they are not liberals.

About the same time that liberalism as a label was taken over by the progressive left and applied to illiberal policies, the actual liberals started calling themselves libertarians to differentiate themselves. So now we have a situation in our country where freedom loving classical liberals are called libertarians, and often illiberal social progressives are called liberals, and we had a presidential election where the guy who won advocated the illiberal policy of restricting immigrant based on religion, and the gal who lost advocated the illiberal policy of restricting freedom of speech.

Ding ding ding.

[Warriorbird]

I think it's funny that you act like you know things.

Repeating incredibly obvious stuff that disproves a claim isn't especially novel. Maybe it is to you though.



Labels change though, and are perverted, and coopted. In the late 1800s a new movement called progressivism came about, with decided illiberal goals. It championed things like unions, and the minimum wage, and eugenics, to protect good white man jobs from freed slaves, immigrants, and women wanting to take them, it wasn't about freedom, but restrictions.

Not really a take I'd make on what ended the Gilded Age but certainly one I'd expect you to have. Progressivism was across both parties and certainly had all sorts of problematic aspects... while simultaneously breaking the back of the monopolistic anti-individual and anti-competition forces of that time.

[Neveragain]

Repeating incredibly obvious stuff that disproves a claim isn't especially novel. Maybe it is to you though.



Not really a take I'd make on what ended the Gilded Age but certainly one I'd expect you to have. Progressivism was across both parties and certainly had all sorts of problematic aspects... while simultaneously breaking the back of the monopolistic anti-individual and anti-competition forces of that time.

Except to you didn't disprove anything, the embargo act was passed to prevent the US from getting drawn into a foreign war. And your go to "but slavery" is drivel, yes America had slavery, along with the rest of the world, sorry blacks were not the only slaves. Just stop it with slavery, we were ahead of our time by ending slavery.

[Stumplicker]

I'm not sure where you come to the conclusion that he shrunk our military, it wasn't until multiple efforts by Jefferson to convince Congress to allocate money's to rebuild our navy to end the tribute demands made by the Barbary states of northern Africa. Adams wanted to continue with ransom payments.

Ooh it can use the wikipedia. Good for you! Keep reading. You'll get to the part where you'll get your "I'm not sure where you come to the conclusion" is answered eventually. It's just a few short steps after that to get your Grade 10, and you'll finally be able to run Cory and Trevor good enough to run the park.

[Warriorbird]

Except to you didn't disprove anything, the embargo act was passed to prevent the US from getting drawn into a foreign war. And your go to "but slavery" is drivel, yes America had slavery, along with the rest of the world, sorry blacks were not the only slaves. Just stop it with slavery, we were ahead of our time by ending slavery.

The Embargo Act crushed the American economy because it prevented competition... the very antithesis of "Libertarianism."

Part of what triggered support for the Revolutionary War is England ending slavery. We were behind the curve.

You're reaching back for justification in a politician that doesn't justify you. He doesn't really fit any current ideology.

[Stumplicker]

The Embargo Act crushed the American economy because it prevented competition... the very antithesis of "Libertarianism."

Part of what triggered support for the Revolutionary War is England ending slavery. We were behind the curve.

You're reaching back for justification in a politician that doesn't justify you. He doesn't really fit any current ideology.

Dingdingding. The Embargo Act of 1807!

[Latrinsorm]

Libertarian as a label did not exist back then. Jefferson was a liberal.

Liberal is a subjective label that depends on context. A modern liberal would not own slaves, but considering the times he lived in, Jefferson was a liberal, he was a liberal for his era.

What is a liberal? Someone who believes in liberty above all things, obviously.

Labels change though, and are perverted, and coopted. In the late 1800s a new movement called progressivism came about, with decided illiberal goals. It championed things like unions, and the minimum wage, and eugenics, to protect good white man jobs from freed slaves, immigrants, and women wanting to take them, it wasn't about freedom, but restrictions.

Eventually, during the 1900s, this changed, slowly, the left continued to be generally racist, the right not, as a vestige of the civil war. Going through to the 1960s where The Civil Rights Act had more Republican support than Democrat. This is why you had such recent racists in the Democratic party such as Al Gore's daddy and Robert Byrd (HRC's mentor, so she said). But you had this morphing from progressivism, which was originally motivated by racist and xenophobic intentions, to what they called social liberalism, or social progressivism, which as opposed to the liberty ideal of classical liberalism, held up equality as the most important virtue. There were influences of course from other political philosophies at work as well, with this period being the heyday for the rise of socialism and communism.Progressivism is not opposed to liberty, and does not enthrone equality. Progressivism merely makes the observation that a government must intervene to secure the liberties it promises - hence the protection of unions, hence the minimum wage. You believe that government intervention is the opposite of liberty, but that doesn't mean progressives do.

Progressivism was no more motivated by racism than liberalism was. Both philosophies counted many racists among their ranks and continue to do so - Thomas Jefferson doesn't make liberalism originally motivated by racism, neither does whoever you'd like to quote for progressivism.

[Neveragain]

Ooh it can use the wikipedia. Good for you! Keep reading. You'll get to the part where you'll get your "I'm not sure where you come to the conclusion" is answered eventually. It's just a few short steps after that to get your Grade 10, and you'll finally be able to run Cory and Trevor good enough to run the park.

Considering I'm not using Wikipedia, I'm kind off stuck on how he shrunk our military by building war ships and creating the marines. We must of had substantial force considering we won the first few encounters against the opening months of 1812. Just the fact that we defeated the world's superpower twice in less than 40 years suggests we we did pretty well.

Again, the embargo act was to prevent war, war profiteering is not a libertarian ideal.

[Wrathbringer]

Considering I'm not using Wikipedia, I'm kind off stuck on how he shrunk our military by building war ships and creating the marines. We must of had substantial force considering we won the first few encounters against the opening months of 1812. Just the fact that we defeated the world's superpower twice in less than 40 years suggests we we did pretty well.

Again, the embargo act was to prevent war, war profiteering is not a libertarian ideal.

"must of had"? Really?

[Stumplicker]

Considering I'm not using Wikipedia, I'm kind off stuck on how he shrunk our military by building war ships and creating the marines. We must of had substantial force considering we won the first few encounters against the opening months of 1812. Just the fact that we defeated the world's superpower twice in less than 40 years suggests we we did pretty well.

Again, the embargo act was to prevent war, war profiteering is not a libertarian ideal.

Adams built up the Navy and Army in the late 1790s. Jefferson ran on a platform of defunding it. He couldn't do that from 1804-1805 because we went to war, then he decided in 1807 that instead of defending our trade, we would just stop. This cut federal revenue from 17 million in 1807 to 8 million in 1808. It was replaced in 1809 with the Non Intercourse pact because of course it was. 50% of the federal revenue had disappeared. This raised tensions with both the British and the French because it was designed specifically to fuck them both. Then, budgets slashed and desperate, we declared an offensive war on Canada against a tiny defensive army in 1812 in the hopes of getting rid of a British foothold before Europe was done with Napoleon. The anemic US army and navy, having been gutted due to Jefferson's policies was defeated soundly, and after the war was lost, the British came in force when force could be spared just to burn the white house as a fuck you.

[Neveragain]

Adams built up the Navy and Army in the late 1790s. Jefferson ran on a platform of defunding it. He couldn't do that from 1804-1805 because we went to war, then he decided in 1807 that instead of defending our trade, we would just stop. This cut federal revenue from 17 million in 1807 to 8 million in 1808. It was replaced in 1809 with the Non Intercourse pact because of course it was. 50% of the federal revenue had disappeared. This raised tensions with both the British and the French because it was designed specifically to fuck them both. Then, budgets slashed and desperate, we declared an offensive war on Canada against a tiny defensive army in 1812 in the hopes of getting rid of a British foothold before Europe was done with Napoleon. The anemic US army and navy, having been gutted due to Jefferson's policies was defeated soundly, and after the war was lost, the British came in force when force could be spared just to burn the white house as a fuck you.

Dude, when Jefferson and Adams were diplomats they had shit tons of correspondence between each other, Jefferson on many occasions wanted war with the pirate states, Adams continued to disagree with Jefferson. It wasn't until they captured a ship and her crew ( which were made slaves) that Adams and Congress would allocate the money. At the time we were at peace with Britain, so much so we flew the Union Jack on our own ships until we were in gun range then lower and raise the American flag.

[Latrinsorm]

Dude, when Jefferson and Adams were diplomats they had shit tons of correspondence between each other, Jefferson on many occasions wanted war with the pirate states, Adams continued to disagree with Jefferson. It wasn't until they captured a ship and her crew ( which were made slaves) that Adams and Congress would allocate the money. At the time we were at peace with Britain, so much so we flew the Union Jack on our own ships until we were in gun range then lower and raise the American flag.So you're saying Jefferson is the original flip flopper?

[Neveragain]

So you're saying Jefferson is the original flip flopper?

Probably not the first but he definitely flopped, there was very little public support for military action until the whole Philadelphia incident.

[Spirit Wolf]

Adams built up the Navy and Army in the late 1790s. Jefferson ran on a platform of defunding it. He couldn't do that from 1804-1805 because we went to war, then he decided in 1807 that instead of defending our trade, we would just stop. This cut federal revenue from 17 million in 1807 to 8 million in 1808. It was replaced in 1809 with the Non Intercourse pact because of course it was. 50% of the federal revenue had disappeared. This raised tensions with both the British and the French because it was designed specifically to fuck them both. Then, budgets slashed and desperate, we declared an offensive war on Canada against a tiny defensive army in 1812 in the hopes of getting rid of a British foothold before Europe was done with Napoleon. The anemic US army and navy, having been gutted due to Jefferson's policies was defeated soundly, and after the war was lost, the British came in force when force could be spared just to burn the white house as a fuck you.

Adams? It is true that Adams built up the military, but only cause he was being pressured by Thomas Jefferson and others to do so. As far as Adams and the Barbary Pirates though, he did what modern Liberals today like Obama do, apologize, beg and pay the ransom. It wasn't until Thomas Jefferson became president that anything really happened with the Barbary pirates and this is also where we get the notion of never giving in to the demands of terrorism. Interesting note, Obama is the first President to capitulate to terrorists since Adams. :)
Edit: This is also part of the reason Adams was a 1 term President. Well that and his mess with France.
BTW I gotta ask, where did you get your info from? It looks almost word for word from Wikipedia there. Do yourself a favor and get an Encyclopedia Britannica Subscription it will help you.

[Neveragain]

I would suggest reading Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates. Good read that gives good insight to the times and the major players at the time. One of the most interesting for me is how that area if the world has changed very little, same shit 200 years later.

[Warriorbird]

I would suggest reading Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates. Good read that gives good insight to the times and the major players at the time. One of the most interesting for me is how that area if the world has changed very little, same shit 200 years later.

There's less historical consensus on that book than Turn though he's certainly an engaging writer for the public.

[Stumplicker]

BTW I gotta ask, where did you get your info from? It looks almost word for word from Wikipedia there. Do yourself a favor and get an Encyclopedia Britannica Subscription it will help you.

https://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Anthropology-Thomas-Patterson/dp/1859734944

http://www.rkci.org/library/gsp/early/nonintercourseact.htm

Sources cited.

[Latrinsorm]

https://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Anthropology-Thomas-Patterson/dp/1859734944

http://www.rkci.org/library/gsp/early/nonintercourseact.htm

Sources cited.Social history? Sounds like socialism. Not gonna be able to do it. Wouldn't be prudent.
I would suggest reading Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates. Good read that gives good insight to the times and the major players at the time. One of the most interesting for me is how that area if the world has changed very little, same shit 200 years later.Northern Africa has changed significantly in the last 200 years. It was colonized by European powers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, took widely varied paths to independence, and its constituents stand at widely varied points. The city of Tripoli itself is close to the border between Tunisia and Libya - you will not find many neighboring countries more distinct than those two.

[Ravenwood]

I love it when the rednecks bash on places like SF and NYC, i.e. the motors of our country's financial and technological dominance, as well as the educational centers of our great country. With a few notable exceptions like Univ. of Chicago, and Northwestern, the vast majority of the top tier universities in the U.S. are in these, what did you call them? Marxist shit holes?

Furthermore, you obviously don't know anything whatsoever about Marxism, so I'm gonna clue you in - calling a place like San Francicso, an entire city of one percenters, 'Marxist', is accomplishing nothing aside from trumpeting your ignorance and stupidity.


What do they teach in these "top-tier universities"?

Do you even know where the term redneck comes from?


The term characterized farmers having a red neck caused by sunburn from hours working in the fields. A citation from 1893 provides a definition as "poorer inhabitants of the rural districts...men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin stained red and burnt by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks".

By 1900, "rednecks" was in common use to designate the political factions inside the Democratic Party comprising poor white farmers in the South. The same group was also often called the "wool hat boys" (for they opposed the rich men, who wore expensive silk hats). A newspaper notice in Mississippi in August 1891 called on rednecks to rally at the polls at the upcoming primary election.

Its those same rednecks who went on to form the Klu Klux Klan to oppose Republican efforts aimed at racial equality.


As per usual, liberals like you everything completely ass backwards.

[time4fun]

What do they teach in these "top-tier universities"?

Do you even know where the term redneck comes from?


The term characterized farmers having a red neck caused by sunburn from hours working in the fields. A citation from 1893 provides a definition as "poorer inhabitants of the rural districts...men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin stained red and burnt by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks".

By 1900, "rednecks" was in common use to designate the political factions inside the Democratic Party comprising poor white farmers in the South. The same group was also often called the "wool hat boys" (for they opposed the rich men, who wore expensive silk hats). A newspaper notice in Mississippi in August 1891 called on rednecks to rally at the polls at the upcoming primary election.

Its those same rednecks who went on to form the Klu Klux Klan to oppose Republican efforts aimed at racial equality.


As per usual, liberals like you everything completely ass backwards.

Uh. Not only did you not actually engage with the real point the previous poster made, but you cited a 100 year old definition of a term despite knowing that it stands in stark contradiction to today's useage.

Guess what- gay doesn't really mean happy anymore either.

Excellent job reinforcing the stereotype that Conservatives are trying to live in a world that no longer exists because they're terrified of change.

[Ravenwood]

Uh. Not only did you not actually engage with the real point the previous poster made, but you cited a 100 year old definition of a term despite knowing that it stands in stark contradiction to today's useage.

Guess what- gay doesn't really mean happy anymore either.

Excellent job reinforcing the stereotype that Conservatives are trying to live in a world that no longer exists because they're terrified of change.

It stands in stark contradiction to YOUR usage...but then again history, reality, the truth, our Constitution, right and wrong, all of that is subjective to you liberals
anyway.

They have to be so you can act first and then attempt to justify your actions after the fact.

Just ask Nancy "you have to pass it to see whats in it" Pelosi.

Its our bad really, we should all just realize that the world revolves around you and should change to suit your whims and agendas.

It might come as a shock to you, but change and progress arent the same thing.....in fact if were speaking about liberals and their ideals, regressive and degenerate is much closer to the actual truth.

[drauz]

I love it when the rednecks bash on places like SF and NYC, i.e. the motors of our country's financial and technological dominance, as well as the educational centers of our great country. With a few notable exceptions like Univ. of Chicago, and Northwestern, the vast majority of the top tier universities in the U.S. are in these, what did you call them? Marxist shit holes?

Furthermore, you obviously don't know anything whatsoever about Marxism, so I'm gonna clue you in - calling a place like San Francicso, an entire city of one percenters, 'Marxist', is accomplishing nothing aside from trumpeting your ignorance and stupidity.

These cities are neither the financial or technological reason for dominance. People go to these areas because that is where these companies have setup shop, nothing more. The stock exchange could be in any city, NY doesn't offer something special it was just started there. Computer companies could go to any state, Stanford gave birth to HP and Lockheed Martin was setup there for the Cold War. They are self perpetuating.

They aren't "shit holes" if you have a nice paying job but they are hard for normal people to live in. The prices to live in SF or NYC are absurdly high.

[Neveragain]

It stands in stark contradiction to YOUR usage...but then again history, reality, the truth, our Consitution, right and wrong, all of that is subjective to you liberals anyway.

Its our bad really, we should all just realize that the world revolves around you and should change to suit your whims and agendas.

It might come as a shock to you, but change and progress arent the same thing.

And if were speaking about liberals, regressive and degenerate is much closer to the actual truth.

Of course they changed the meaning of redneck to a racial slur, this is the democrats we are talking about. Defenders of slavery, creators of the KKK.......


Excellent job reinforcing the stereotype that Conservatives are trying to live in a world that no longer exists because they're terrified of change.

It's not change that scares us, it's the regressive change that the Democrats represent that has us all scratching our heads. I mean you are literally arguing for popular vote, a system that was proven a failure when Greece was the center of the universe.

[time4fun]

It stands in stark contradiction to YOUR usage...but then again history, reality, the truth, our Constitution, right and wrong, all of that is subjective to you liberals
anyway.

They have to be so you can act first and then attempt to justify your actions after the fact.

Just ask Nancy "you have to pass it to see whats in it" Pelosi.

Its our bad really, we should all just realize that the world revolves around you and should change to suit your whims and agendas.

It might come as a shock to you, but change and progress arent the same thing.....in fact if were speaking about liberals and their ideals, regressive and degenerate is much closer to the actual truth.

Yes, more people should respect the Redneck provisions in the Constitution.

You have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

[Neveragain]

Yes, more people should respect the Redneck provisions in the Constitution.

You have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

What provision are the "Redneck" provisions, nigger?

[time4fun]

These cities are neither the financial or technological reason for dominance. People go to these areas because that is where these companies have setup shop, nothing more. The stock exchange could be in any city, NY doesn't offer something special it was just started there. Computer companies could go to any state, Stanford gave birth to HP and Lockheed Martin was setup there for the Cold War. They are self perpetuating.

They aren't "shit holes" if you have a nice paying job but they are hard for normal people to live in. The prices to live in SF or NYC are absurdly high.

Actually, it wasn't an accident that tech companies just happened to "set up shop" a few miles from Stanford. Stanford was a huge driving force behind the development of Silicon Valley as we know it, and the extremely high number of educated people in the Bay are why it's still the heart of tech in the US. Now it's a symbiotic relationship- people fight to get into schools like Stanford and Cal so they can get jobs in tech, and tech continues to thrive because it has a massively talented and educated (and entitled) workforce to draw upon.

It's similar to how Wall Street became the financial epicenter of the US (and global) economy. There were a lot of factors involved, but highly educated and talented workforce concentrated in one area played a very critical role.

And though it's not super relevant to the thread, I want to emphasize the point about these places being tough for "normal" people to live in. If you've never lived in SF- it's not just as bad as you've heard...it's worse. But some of that is very much island syndrome. The fact that both SF and NYC, for example, are port towns isn't an accident. Being surrounded by water on most- or all- sides is a big part of why it's so expensive to live. (And part of why these areas have become technological and financial epicenters).

[Ravenwood]

Yes, more people should respect the Redneck provisions in the Constitution.

You have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

If you have no respect for our Founding Father's and their vision of this country, then you should do all of us, including yourself, a favor and get the hell out.

God knows you liberals threaten it often enough.

And I know perfectly well what Im talking about. The truth for me doesnt change according to my emotions, or my agendas or which the wind is blowing like it does for you. Its strong, steady, permanent and unchanging....like a rock...or how our Constitution was intended to be.

[time4fun]

If you have no respect for our Founding Father's and their vision of this country, then you should do all of us, including yourself, a favor and get the hell out.

God knows you liberals threaten it often enough.

Sure, I'll bite.

Tell me which parts of the constitution I'm not respecting.

In my experience, people who rant and rave about the Founding Fathers' vision of this country know the least about it.

[drauz]

Sure, I'll bite.

Tell me which parts of the constitution I'm not respecting.

In my experience, people who rant and rave about the Founding Fathers' vision of this country know the least about it.

Many alt-left liberals hate free speech and only want "correct" speech.

[time4fun]

Many alt-left liberals hate free speech and only want "correct" speech.

Ahhh yes. Political correctness is ruining America.

So tell me Drauz- what is it that you miss being able to say about women and minorities in public?

[drauz]

Ahhh yes. Political correctness is ruining America.

So tell me Drauz- what is it that you miss being able to say about women and minorities in public?

Um? Thats not even what I'm talking about but wow you flew to the sexist/race card pretty fast. I am talking about trying to ban speakers from college campuses (that are inviting by other college groups) because they don't like what they say.

[time4fun]

Um? Thats not even what I'm talking about but wow you flew to the sexist/race card pretty fast. I am talking about trying to ban speakers from college campuses (that are inviting by other college groups) because they don't like what they say.

It's called dog whistle politics for a reason.

Please list some specific examples of speakers being banned from college campuses along with the reasoning provided for the bans. I'm confident that none of them have anything to do with issues of sex, sexuality, or race.

Then, please explain to the class how these specific instances are tied to the "state of America".

I look forward to your fleshed out argument. Certainly you would never hold this view if you didn't already have one.

[drauz]

Actually, it wasn't an accident that tech companies just happened to "set up shop" a few miles from Stanford. Stanford was a huge driving force behind the development of Silicon Valley as we know it, and the extremely high number of educated people in the Bay are why it's still the heart of tech in the US. Now it's a symbiotic relationship- people fight to get into schools like Stanford and Cal so they can get jobs in tech, and tech continues to thrive because it has a massively talented and educated (and entitled) workforce to draw upon.

It's similar to how Wall Street became the financial epicenter of the US (and global) economy. There were a lot of factors involved, but highly educated and talented workforce concentrated in one area played a very critical role.

And though it's not super relevant to the thread, I want to emphasize the point about these places being tough for "normal" people to live in. If you've never lived in SF- it's not just as bad as you've heard...it's worse. But some of that is very much island syndrome. The fact that both SF and NYC, for example, are port towns isn't an accident. Being surrounded by water on most- or all- sides is a big part of why it's so expensive to live. (And part of why these areas have become technological and financial epicenters).

So, almost exactly what I said?

[Neveragain]

Ahhh yes. Political correctness is ruining America.

So tell me Drauz- what is it that you miss being able to say about women and minorities in public?

Political correctness sure ended the Democrats chance at any political power in the foreseeable future. Of course I'm more than pleased to watch you all continue to shoot yourself in the face as the rest of the country makes your movement their whipping boy.

May as well get used to it sweetheart, your ideas have been rejected and the Democrats want their party back.

[drauz]

It's called dog whistle politics for a reason.

Please list some specific examples of speakers being banned from college campuses along with the reasoning provided for the bans. I'm confident that none of them have anything to do with issues of sex, sexuality, or race.

Then, please explain to the class how these specific instances are tied to the "state of America".

I look forward to your fleshed out argument. Certainly you would never hold this view if you didn't already have one.

http://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-disinvited-speakers-at-colleges-2016-7

Wow, look at that.

Why am I presenting an argument that these instances are tied to the "state of America"? You asked a question and I answered it. You apparently don't like my answer, but that isn't my problem. I'll take a single swing at it though, it sure didn't do liberals any favors in this past election.

[Gelston]

http://www.licensingexpo.com/sites/www.licensingexpo.com/files/images/PuppyMonkeyBaby.jpg

[time4fun]

http://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-disinvited-speakers-at-colleges-2016-7

Wow, look at that.

Why am I presenting an argument that these instances are tied to the "state of America"? You asked a question and I answered it. You apparently don't like my answer, but that isn't my problem. I'll take a single swing at it though, it sure didn't do liberals any favors in this past election.

If you're going to argue that speakers being banned in college campuses in some way threatens the Founding Fathers' vision of the country- you're going to have to tie the bans to the state of America. (That was the argument that you jumped into)

Also, cute article. First, a little bit about FIRE: "One of FIRE's primary focuses is opposition to campus "speech codes." FIRE identifies as speech codes those college and university policies prohibiting expressions that the institutions consider to be sexually, racially, religiously or otherwise offensive in content..."

How strange- it's almost as if they view Political Correctness as related to race and gender. But...didn't you just argue that PC isn't about that?

And, so we're clear- a list =/= an argument. And a list of 9 speakers (only 8 of whom were questioned due to their content) out of over 4,000 US colleges and universities is something short of a trend. But let's look at this list, shall we?

Ben Shapiro- revocation of invitation was unrelated to speaker's content
Nicholas Dirks- was disinvited for perceived racism in proposed speech (they actually had a Breibart quote attached to him)
Anita Alvarez- was not banned from campus- was interrupted during speech for perceived racism
Action Bronson- disinvited for perceived transphobia
Emily Wong- invitation to speak reconsidered because she wasn't directly addressing student concerns related to race and transphobia
John Brennan- not banned from campus-was interrupted during speech for involvement in war crimes
Jason Riley- the professor who originally invited him to speak (professor- NOT the university) due to concerns over Riley's treatment of race
John Derbyshire- invitation revoked due to perceived racism (Derbyshire literally wrote an article telling people to avoid areas with high concentrations of black people they didn't know)
Suzanne Venker- invitation revoked due to her self-ascribed misogyny.

So let's do the math. Of the 9 people here who were supposedly "banned" from college campuses:
2 weren't banned at all- they were just interrupted by their own audience
1 had their invitation revoked for reasons that were entirely unrelated to the the speaker
1 had their invitation revoked by the individual professor who invited them to speak (presumably to a class), not the school itself

Of the 8 people whose content was in question:
5 were in question because of perceived racism
2 were in question because of perceived transphobia
1 was in question because of perceived misogyny

And only one of the 8 was in question for anything other than sex or race, and it was related to war crimes.

Sorry, weren't you trying to prove that political correctness wasn't about sex, race, and sexuality?

[Neveragain]

I'll take this moment to point out it's the Dangerous Faggot that has all these campuses freaking the fuck out and of course time4fun excludes him from her discourse. One of these wonderful "professors" offered extra credit to students that did not attend.

Because of "perceived" ism's. Complete insanity.

[drauz]

If you're going to argue that speakers being banned in college campuses in some way threatens the Founding Fathers' vision of the country- you're going to have to tie the bans to the state of America. (That was the argument that you jumped into)

1) Also, cute article. First, a little bit about FIRE: "One of FIRE's primary focuses is opposition to campus "speech codes." FIRE identifies as speech codes those college and university policies prohibiting expressions that the institutions consider to be sexually, racially, religiously or otherwise offensive in content..."

How strange- it's almost as if they view Political Correctness as related to race and gender. But...didn't you just argue that PC isn't about that?

2) And, so we're clear- a list =/= an argument. And a list of 9 speakers (only 8 of whom were questioned due to their content) out of over 4,000 US colleges and universities is something short of a trend. But let's look at this list, shall we?

And only one of the 8 was in question for anything other than sex or race, and it was related to war crimes.

3) Sorry, weren't you trying to prove that political correctness wasn't about sex, race, and sexuality?

1) When did I try to say that? When I pointed out you trying to imply I was sexist or racist? That wasn't me saying "PC isn't about race, religion, sex, or sexuality".

2) When you ask for a list, you shouldn't be disappointed when you get one. Also if you follow the link for FIRE's website you can find a database of all the disinvitations, which is a lot more than 9 (I think you knew that though).
https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/#home/?view_2_page=13

3) No, I wasn't.

If you don't think free speech is an important right that the founding fathers envisioned for this country, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Parkbandit]

If you're going to argue that speakers being banned in college campuses in some way threatens the Founding Fathers' vision of the country- you're going to have to tie the bans to the state of America. (That was the argument that you jumped into)

Also, cute article. First, a little bit about FIRE: "One of FIRE's primary focuses is opposition to campus "speech codes." FIRE identifies as speech codes those college and university policies prohibiting expressions that the institutions consider to be sexually, racially, religiously or otherwise offensive in content..."

How strange- it's almost as if they view Political Correctness as related to race and gender. But...didn't you just argue that PC isn't about that?

And, so we're clear- a list =/= an argument. And a list of 9 speakers (only 8 of whom were questioned due to their content) out of over 4,000 US colleges and universities is something short of a trend. But let's look at this list, shall we?

Ben Shapiro- revocation of invitation was unrelated to speaker's content
Nicholas Dirks- was disinvited for perceived racism in proposed speech (they actually had a Breibart quote attached to him)
Anita Alvarez- was not banned from campus- was interrupted during speech for perceived racism
Action Bronson- disinvited for perceived transphobia
Emily Wong- invitation to speak reconsidered because she wasn't directly addressing student concerns related to race and transphobia
John Brennan- not banned from campus-was interrupted during speech for involvement in war crimes
Jason Riley- the professor who originally invited him to speak (professor- NOT the university) due to concerns over Riley's treatment of race
John Derbyshire- invitation revoked due to perceived racism (Derbyshire literally wrote an article telling people to avoid areas with high concentrations of black people they didn't know)
Suzanne Venker- invitation revoked due to her self-ascribed misogyny.

So let's do the math. Of the 9 people here who were supposedly "banned" from college campuses:
2 weren't banned at all- they were just interrupted by their own audience
1 had their invitation revoked for reasons that were entirely unrelated to the the speaker
1 had their invitation revoked by the individual professor who invited them to speak (presumably to a class), not the school itself

Of the 8 people whose content was in question:
5 were in question because of perceived racism
2 were in question because of perceived transphobia
1 was in question because of perceived misogyny

And only one of the 8 was in question for anything other than sex or race, and it was related to war crimes.

Sorry, weren't you trying to prove that political correctness wasn't about sex, race, and sexuality?

LOL.

The tears that are still streaming down your face are delicious.

[Tisket]

Ahhh yes. Political correctness is ruining America.

So tell me Drauz- what is it that you miss being able to say about women and minorities in public?

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie

[Gelston]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, misattributed to Volatire.

[time4fun]

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie

I don't think you understand what the 1st Amendment actually does. Nor the context behind Rushdie's quote.

Rushdie's point was you don't "burn the bookstore down", not that you don't have a right to avoid the bookstore. More to the point, Rushdie wasn't arguing that there shouldn't be consequences for speech. You don't have the right to run around and say racist things to peoples' faces and expect them to smile and nod contemplatively.

Don't pretend like the "war against political correctness" is anything but dog whistle politics at its finest.

[Tisket]

I don't think you understand what the 1st Amendment actually does. Nor the context behind Rushdie's quote.

Rushdie's point was you don't "burn the bookstore down", not that you don't have a right to avoid the bookstore. More to the point, Rushdie wasn't arguing that there shouldn't be consequences for speech. You don't have the right to run around and say racist things to peoples' faces and expect them to smile and nod contemplatively.

Don't pretend like the "war against political correctness" is anything but dog whistle politics at its finest.

Except you absolutely do have the right to run around and say racist things to people's faces. How they react to it is another matter separate from your rights.

[Neveragain]

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie

There's a throwback and a superb example of what Fascists like Time4fun either knowingly or unknowingly usher in with their department of speech mindset. How long was that dude in hiding for writing a book, I know it was for years if not still in hiding.

[Gelston]

Except you absolutely do have the right to run around and say racist things to people's faces. How they react to it is another matter separate from your rights.

Not quite. Fighting Words doctrine. You can definitely use words as an incitement to violence. That is illegal.

[Tisket]

Not quite. Fighting Words doctrine. You can definitely use words as an incitement to violence. That is illegal.

Yeah, if I go around encouraging and inciting others to violence then slap cuffs on me. If I stand on the corner and shout about how blue eyed people are scum of the earth, I could do that.

[time4fun]

Yeah, if I go around encouraging and inciting others to violence then slap cuffs on me. If I stand on the corner and shout about how blue eyed people are scum of the earth, I could do that.

Or, to the point, if you go around saying things like "avoid cities with large numbers of black people"- you aren't going to be invited to speak at a private University audience which includes black students.

And then you don't get to cry like a baby about it and act like it's the downfall of American politics.

[Gelston]

Yeah, if I go around encouraging and inciting others to violence then slap cuffs on me. If I stand on the corner and shout about how blue eyed people are scum of the earth, I could do that.

Of course not. Blue eyed people are the best on the planet. No one would believe your drivel.

[Tisket]

Or, to the point, if you go around saying things like "avoid cities with large numbers of black people"- you aren't going to be invited to speak at a private University audience which includes black students.

And then you don't get to cry like a baby about it and act like it's the downfall of American politics.

And social and economic pressure works fine to limit that kind of thing so what is your fucking point? Are you saying that person shouldn't be even allowed to say something like that?

[Tisket]

time4fun would rather drive racists underground than know who they are apparently. Ignorance is bliss in her world.

[Tisket]

Of course not. Blue eyed people are the best on the planet. No one would believe your drivel.

Buy some colored contacts and I'll listen to your words. Until then, begone, devil child!

[Latrinsorm]

If you have no respect for our Founding Father's and their vision of this country, then you should do all of us, including yourself, a favor and get the hell out.

God knows you liberals threaten it often enough.

And I know perfectly well what Im talking about. The truth for me doesnt change according to my emotions, or my agendas or which the wind is blowing like it does for you. Its strong, steady, permanent and unchanging....like a rock...or how our Constitution was intended to be.The Founding Fathers included two explicit methods for amending the Constitution and did so twelve times themselves. In what sense, then, did they want it to be permanent and unchanging?
Political correctness sure ended the Democrats chance at any political power in the foreseeable future. Of course I'm more than pleased to watch you all continue to shoot yourself in the face as the rest of the country makes your movement their whipping boy.

May as well get used to it sweetheart, your ideas have been rejected and the Democrats want their party back.If the country rejected Democrat ideas in the past election, why did they send more Democrats than Republicans to both houses of Congress?

[Neveragain]

That's why Republicans now control all 3 branches and will be seating at least 2 SCJ's.

You keep swinging and missing, I'm starting to feel like Mariano Rivera.

[Gelston]

Buy some colored contacts and I'll listen to your words. Until then, begone, devil child!

I did get colored contacts. I made my eyes even bluer. They were greyish-blue. Now they are a vibrant deep blue that command respect.

[Tisket]

I did get colored contacts. I made my eyes even bluer. They were greyish-blue. Now they are a vibrant deep blue that command respect.

Rowan Atkinson said that inhibiting free speech creates a "veneer of tolerance concealing a snakepit of unaired and unchallenged views" so I'm going to say loud and proud: BLUE EYED PEOPLE ARE THE DEVIL. DRIVE THEM OUT!

[Gelston]

Rowan Atkinson said that inhibiting free speech creates a "veneer of tolerance concealing a snakepit of unaired and unchallenged views" so I'm going to say loud and proud: BLUE EYED PEOPLE ARE THE DEVIL. DRIVE THEM OUT!

George Washington had blue eyes.

[Tisket]

lolol well played, sir, well played.

[Neveragain]

Or, to the point, if you go around saying things like "avoid cities with large numbers of black people"- you aren't going to be invited to speak at a private University audience which includes black students.

And then you don't get to cry like a baby about it and act like it's the downfall of American politics.

Sounds like sound logic to avoid cities with high black population. Latest numbers from Chicago, murders up over 50 percent from last year. I know you're ilk would hate to have speakers expose these numbers are a direct result of Democrat created ghettos.

[Wrathbringer]

I know I avoid black people when I can.

[Latrinsorm]

That's why Republicans now control all 3 branches and will be seating at least 2 SCJ's. You keep swinging and missing, I'm starting to feel like Mariano Rivera.I have been trying to argue less about math with people who don't like math, but I didn't think something as simple as 54 minus 52 would fall under that. Oh well.

[Neveragain]

I have been trying to argue less about math with people who don't like math, but I didn't think something as simple as 54 minus 52 would fall under that. Oh well.

Why would you bother with huge two digit numbers when you can't add 0+0+0=0.

[Enuch]

This may have already been said but if the college is a private institution they are within their rights to allow or not allow whomever they choose to speak. If it was a public institution that would be one thing.

I'd would be like a private company banning certain speech or ideas, has nothing to do with any right or wrong and has everything to do with that specific entity

[Gelston]

This may have already been said but if the college is a private institution they are within their rights to allow or not allow whomever they choose to speak. If it was a public institution that would be one thing.

I'd would be like a private company banning certain speech or ideas, has nothing to do with any right or wrong and has everything to do with that specific entity

What if I refuse to make a cake for gay people?

[Enuch]

didnt Starbucks do that with folks that open carried?

[Gelston]

didnt Starbucks do that with folks that open carried?

It has generally been strongly impressed that it is a property owner's right to deny open carry. Starbucks doesn't want you to open carry in there, that is their right. I think Sam's Club is the same way.

[Enuch]

although these are similar they aren't the same though.

While the company I work for can't deny what groups apply for a job based on orientations because it's discriminatory, they can control what messages the company puts out and who speaks to the company. The NRA would love to have lapierre but I bet Starbucks is going to block lapierre speaking at a local Starbucks in a pro gun state.

Chik fil a is a very strong Christian backbone and if memory serves they have spoken out about same sex marriage. They can't refuse the sale (depending on the state) but they can decide if they want a pro Christian anti same dex marriage speaker at a seminar and block a pro same sex speaker.

[Methais]

If you're going to argue that speakers being banned in college campuses in some way threatens the Founding Fathers' vision of the country- you're going to have to tie the bans to the state of America. (That was the argument that you jumped into)

Also, cute article. First, a little bit about FIRE: "One of FIRE's primary focuses is opposition to campus "speech codes." FIRE identifies as speech codes those college and university policies prohibiting expressions that the institutions consider to be sexually, racially, religiously or otherwise offensive in content..."

How strange- it's almost as if they view Political Correctness as related to race and gender. But...didn't you just argue that PC isn't about that?

And, so we're clear- a list =/= an argument. And a list of 9 speakers (only 8 of whom were questioned due to their content) out of over 4,000 US colleges and universities is something short of a trend. But let's look at this list, shall we?

Ben Shapiro- revocation of invitation was unrelated to speaker's content
Nicholas Dirks- was disinvited for perceived racism in proposed speech (they actually had a Breibart quote attached to him)
Anita Alvarez- was not banned from campus- was interrupted during speech for perceived racism
Action Bronson- disinvited for perceived transphobia
Emily Wong- invitation to speak reconsidered because she wasn't directly addressing student concerns related to race and transphobia
John Brennan- not banned from campus-was interrupted during speech for involvement in war crimes
Jason Riley- the professor who originally invited him to speak (professor- NOT the university) due to concerns over Riley's treatment of race
John Derbyshire- invitation revoked due to perceived racism (Derbyshire literally wrote an article telling people to avoid areas with high concentrations of black people they didn't know)
Suzanne Venker- invitation revoked due to her self-ascribed misogyny.

So let's do the math. Of the 9 people here who were supposedly "banned" from college campuses:
2 weren't banned at all- they were just interrupted by their own audience
1 had their invitation revoked for reasons that were entirely unrelated to the the speaker
1 had their invitation revoked by the individual professor who invited them to speak (presumably to a class), not the school itself

Of the 8 people whose content was in question:
5 were in question because of perceived racism
2 were in question because of perceived transphobia
1 was in question because of perceived misogyny

And only one of the 8 was in question for anything other than sex or race, and it was related to war crimes.

Sorry, weren't you trying to prove that political correctness wasn't about sex, race, and sexuality?

Why did you leave Milo off the list, especially since he's the one causing the most uproars on campuses, and with great success?


I don't think you understand what the 1st Amendment actually does. Nor the context behind Rushdie's quote.

Rushdie's point was you don't "burn the bookstore down", not that you don't have a right to avoid the bookstore. More to the point, Rushdie wasn't arguing that there shouldn't be consequences for speech. You don't have the right to run around and say racist things to peoples' faces and expect them to smile and nod contemplatively.

Don't pretend like the "war against political correctness" is anything but dog whistle politics at its finest.

Actually you do have the right to say racist things to peoples' faces and expect them to smile and nod contemplatively.

Whether they actually do smile and nod is a different story, but that doesn't remove someone's right to expect them to smile and nod, regardless of the odds of it actually happening.

I think what you're really trying to say is, "You don't have the right to hurt my feelings!" when in fact, we do.

Stop being LITERALLY HITLER!

[Latrinsorm]

What if I refuse to make a cake for gay people?The analogy would be if you refused to allow gay people to give a speech in your bakery. We're not talking about applicants with X view not being accepted as students; that is, the service provided by the entity in question.

[Gelston]

The analogy would be if you refused to allow gay people to give a speech in your bakery. We're not talking about applicants with X view not being accepted as students; that is, the service provided by the entity in question.

No one is talking to you.

[Neveragain]

The analogy would be if you refused to allow gay people to give a speech in your bakery. We're not talking about applicants with X view not being accepted as students; that is, the service provided by the entity in question.

Though you do have students receiving preferential treatment for adhering to a selected view by receiving free grade boosts.

Or of course we could go back to refusing to sell pork being OK by your standard but refusing to bake a cake is simply over the top.

I'm sorry sir you can only use this isle if you don't buy pork and alcohol.

I'm sorry sir we can't make a cake for your same sex wedding.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, if I go around encouraging and inciting others to violence then slap cuffs on me. If I stand on the corner and shout about how blue eyed people are scum of the earth, I could do that.

WE ARE NOT YOU, YOU, BITCH!

[Parkbandit]

time4fun would rather drive racists underground than know who they are apparently. Ignorance is bliss in her world.

time4fun calls people racist (or any other "ist") to simply shut down any conversation she doesn't agree with.

"Vote for Hillary!"
"no thank you.. I'm voting for this guy"
"SEXIST!"

"I like President Obama!"
"I do not agree with his policies"
"RACIST!!"

[Gelston]

time4fun calls people racist (or any other "ist") to simply shut down any conversation she doesn't agree with.

"Vote for Hillary!"
"no thank you.. I'm voting for this guy"
"SEXIST!"

"I like President Obama!"
"I do not agree with his policies"
"RACIST!!"

Who cares? Time4fun is a criminal.

[Parkbandit]

This may have already been said but if the college is a private institution they are within their rights to allow or not allow whomever they choose to speak. If it was a public institution that would be one thing.

I'd would be like a private company banning certain speech or ideas, has nothing to do with any right or wrong and has everything to do with that specific entity

I completely agree. As a private institution, they shouldn't accept any federal money... then they don't have to actually follow things like freedom of speech if they choose not to.

[Neveragain]

It's a pretty well known fact that people with blue eyes are able to look into the eyes of another and steal their soul, the lesser eye colors have to resort to spirit cooking.

I have personally mastered the blue eyed devilry and stop at stealing their hearts.

[Latrinsorm]

Though you do have students receiving preferential treatment for adhering to a selected view by receiving free grade boosts. Or of course we could go back to refusing to sell pork being OK by your standard but refusing to bake a cake is simply over the top. I'm sorry sir you can only use this isle if you don't buy pork and alcohol. I'm sorry sir we can't make a cake for your same sex wedding.I never said refusing to sell pork was okay, I said that story was an outright lie. Which it is.

[Neveragain]

I never said refusing to sell pork was okay, I said that story was an outright lie. Which it is.

None of this matters anymore because this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElM1LcgCbi0

[Tisket]

time4fun calls people racist (or any other "ist") to simply shut down any conversation she doesn't agree with.

"Vote for Hillary!"
"no thank you.. I'm voting for this guy"
"SEXIST!"

"I like President Obama!"
"I do not agree with his policies"
"RACIST!!"

Yeah, when that's her knee jerk, go to response whose sole aim is to shut down meaningful conversation and debate then she's lost whatever debate she's involved in.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, when that's her knee jerk, go to response whose sole aim is to shut down meaningful conversation and debate then she's lost whatever debate she's involved in.

We don't really do all that much meaningful conversation here.

I agree though. In that context it is roughly the same as self determinations that somebody can't possibly be racist because insert whatever, claims that a certain political party are the only real racists because insert whatever, or being upset because people's fervent desires to be called racist (to get their Tucker Carlson merit badge) aren't fulfilled.

But we don't really do all that much meaningful conversation here.

So there's not much point unless you're just trying to mess with her... in which case, go for it.

[Tisket]

So there's not much point unless you're just trying to mess with her... in which case, go for it.

Messing with someone IS the whole point. Why post otherwise? Besides, she's such a huge and easy target.

[Gelston]

Messing with someone IS the whole point. Why post otherwise? Besides, she's such a huge and easy target.

Tisket hates fat people.

[Tisket]

Also, the answer to the question posed to me via rep comment is yes.

[time4fun]

Yeah, when that's her knee jerk, go to response whose sole aim is to shut down meaningful conversation and debate then she's lost whatever debate she's involved in.

My favorite part is the way you feign ignorance of these things.

Drauz presented a list of people disinvited from speaking at colleges as a way to argue that the war against political correctness *wasn't* just dog whistle politics (it absolutely is by the way), and I pointed out that the article containing the list clearly stated that most of them were objected to based on perceived racism of their content.

For you to turn around now and say "SHE ALWAYS INSERTS RACISM!" is hysterical given I was just citing the article's own language.

Ignorance is a strategy. One you indulge in when it comes to these issues.

[drauz]

Please list some specific examples of speakers being banned from college campuses along with the reasoning provided for the bans. I'm confident that none of them have anything to do with issues of sex, sexuality, or race.


Drauz presented a list of people disinvited from speaking at colleges as a way to argue that the war against political correctness *wasn't* just dog whistle politics (it absolutely is by the way), and I pointed out that the article containing the list clearly stated that most of them were objected to based on perceived racism of their content.




No, I literally gave you what you asked for.

There is again a keyword in your statement, perceived.

[Tisket]

I was replying to PBs observation. And his observation was spot on. Make it about something else if it makes you feel better though. No skin off my nose.

[time4fun]

No, I literally gave you what you asked for.

There is again a keyword in your statement, perceived.

Fairly lame attempt Drauz. One of the speakers literally warned people to avoid large groups of black people that they don't know and cities with large black populations.

You clearly didn't actually read that article. I challenged you to find me a list of people who were disinvited from college campuses for reasons other than sex and race, and you presented a list of people who were disinvited for those exact reasons.

And it was part of a larger argument that the "war against political correctness" is fundamentally dog whistle politics- centered on racial/sexual resentment politics. And it absolutely is. I called out the implicit racism of the argument, and you just proved me right.

Now a few of you are whining that I pointed out racism as though I somehow invented it. But that's what you do.

[Neveragain]

My favorite part is the way you feign ignorance of these things.

Drauz presented a list of people disinvited from speaking at colleges as a way to argue that the war against political correctness *wasn't* just dog whistle politics (it absolutely is by the way), and I pointed out that the article containing the list clearly stated that most of them were objected to based on perceived racism of their content.

For you to turn around now and say "SHE ALWAYS INSERTS RACISM!" is hysterical given I was just citing the article's own language.

Ignorance is a strategy. One you indulge in when it comes to these issues.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkhUivqzWv0

[Warriorbird]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU

[drauz]

Fairly lame attempt Drauz. One of the speakers literally warned people to avoid large groups of black people that they don't know and cities with large black populations.

You clearly didn't actually read that article. I challenged you to find me a list of people who were disinvited from college campuses for reasons other than sex and race, and you presented a list of people who were disinvited for those exact reasons.

And it was part of a larger argument that the "war against political correctness" is fundamentally dog whistle politics- centered on racial/sexual resentment politics. And it absolutely is. I called out the implicit racism of the argument, and you just proved me right.

Now a few of you are whining that I pointed out racism as though I somehow invented it. But that's what you do.

I did read the article. You found one person out of 50 that was legitimately banned. Well one person was legitimately banned so my whole case goes out the window, lol no. What about the black speaker who was banned because he had a book "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed"? Hmm. Was he being racist/sexist/etc?

You also said that I wasn't arguing about PC being sex, race, etc. Which wasn't correct.

You will have to elaborate how I proved you right. Because I said it was perceived?

I'm not complaining that you point out racism (which you haven't, unless you mean NeverAgain but thats like shooting fish in a barrel), I'm complaining because you call people racist to try to shut them up. My first comment was literally only saying the alt-left really likes to shut down free speech on college campuses, and your response was implying that I was racist and/or sexist. That is the problem you have, this is your knee-jerk reaction. Sadly you can't see it.

[time4fun]

I did read the article. You found one person out of 50 that was legitimately banned. Well one person was legitimately banned so my whole case goes out the window, lol no. What about the black speaker who was banned because he had a book "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed"? Hmm.

You also said that I wasn't arguing about PC being sex, race, etc. Which wasn't correct.

You will have to elaborate how I proved you right. Because I said it was perceived?

I'm not complaining that you point out racism (which you haven't, unless you mean NeverAgain but thats like shooting fish in a barrel), I'm complaining because you call people racist to try to shut them up. My first comment was literally only saying the alt-left really likes to shut down free speech on college campuses, and your response was implying that I was racist and/or sexist. That is the problem you have, this is your knee-jerk reaction. Sadly you can't see it.

Wait, are you serious?

Did you actually read my post? Or the article?

[Neveragain]

I did read the article. You found one person out of 50 that was legitimately banned. Well one person was legitimately banned so my whole case goes out the window, lol no. What about the black speaker who was banned because he had a book "Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed"? Hmm.

You also said that I wasn't arguing about PC being sex, race, etc. Which wasn't correct.

You will have to elaborate how I proved you right. Because I said it was perceived?

I'm not complaining that you point out racism (which you haven't, unless you mean NeverAgain but thats like shooting fish in a barrel), I'm complaining because you call people racist to try to shut them up. My first comment was literally only saying the alt-left really likes to shut down free speech on college campuses, and your response was implying that I was racist and/or sexist. That is the problem you have, this is your knee-jerk reaction. Sadly you can't see it.

I'll bite, I'm racist because? and go...

[drauz]

Also, the answer to the question posed to me via rep comment is yes.

I wanna shoot for the stars!

[drauz]

I'll bite, I'm racist because? and go...

I'm not gonna prove my point everytime this is brought up. I don't feel like searching thru your forum posts again, plus the fact that you have two accounts you post from makes it harder.

[Neveragain]

I'm not gonna prove my point everytime this is brought up. I don't feel like searching thru your forum posts again, plus the fact that you have two accounts you post from makes it harder.

But it's like shooting fish in a barrel Drauz.

The only time I get all racist is when people like Time4fun start throwing around their own ism's. Unless of course you find redneck to not be racist.

BTW, how did celebrating something you don't believe in go this Christmas?

[Gelston]

No, I don't find redneck to be a racist term. Any color can be a redneck. It is a way of life, not a color.

[Neveragain]

No, I don't find redneck to be a racist term. Any color can be a redneck. It is a way of life, not a color.

You didn't get the language update? According to Time4fun it's a term used to describe white hicks. So when she uses the term Redneck under that assumption I use nigger in response.

Not sure how many times I have had to explain this now. A person may make words but words don't make a person.

[Tisket]

Time4fun is like a pilot who releases chaff in a desperate attempt to confuse incoming missiles. All the countermeasures in the world won't help you evade logic missiles. But by all means keep flailing.

[Gelston]

You didn't get the language update? According to Time4fun it's a term used to describe white hicks. So when she uses the term Redneck under that assumption I use nigger in response.

Not sure how many times I have had to explain this now. A person may make words but words don't make a person.

It was a term for that. Jeff Foxworthy did a good job normalizing it.

[Tisket]

And did Gelly just accuse me of fatism?

lol

[Gelston]

And did Gelly just accuse me of fatism?

lol

I'm accusing you of latism now.

[Neveragain]

It was a term for that. Jeff Foxworthy did a good job normalizing it.

Ok, so how many times do we have to say nigger before it becomes normal again?

No but honestly, I have always considered myself an equal opportunity employer. As long as she's hot I don't care what her skin color is. I would for sure tap Tyra Banks.

[Tisket]

I'm accusing you of latism now.

I know. I'm not timely at all today.

[drauz]

Wait, are you serious?

Did you actually read my post? Or the article?

Yes. Did you actually go to the FIRE database, so you could see the rest of the disinvites?

[drauz]

But it's like shooting fish in a barrel Drauz.

The only time I get all racist is when people like Time4fun start throwing around their own ism's. Unless of course you find redneck to not be racist.

BTW, how did celebrating something you don't believe in go this Christmas?

Fine, from like 10 pages ago.


What provision are the "Redneck" provisions, nigger?

[Neveragain]

Fine, from like 10 pages ago.

I think you practice latism as well.

You are also a heavy practitioner of out of contextism.

[Gelston]

I think you practice latism as well.

You are also a heavy practitioner of out of contextism.

Even in context, that was pretty racist.

[drauz]

I think you practice latism as well.

You are also a heavy practitioner of out of contextism.

You used nigger because Time4fun used redneck. Redneck isn't a racist term. It's more of an economic term. It is used mostly by well off white people to disparage a lower economic group usually from the south (though it has more recently been turned around, much like how black people say nigga).

Its like me tapping you on the shoulder and in return you punch me in the face. You have a very hard time with proportionality.

[tyrant-201]

Ok, so how many times do we have to say nigger before it becomes normal again?

No but honestly, I have always considered myself an equal opportunity employer. As long as she's hot I don't care what her skin color is. I would for sure tap Tyra Banks.

That word has no place in anyone's vocabulary, black or white. PC'ness is overboard, sure. There's some phrases better left in the past though, and that's one of them. Using it is also a surefire way to prove your ignorance to both sides of the political spectrum.

[Neveragain]

Even in context, that was pretty racist.

Oh, the use of the word was for sure racist though it was only used in response to her explaining in her own way what Redneck meant to us republicans that are afraid of change.

I really don't see how "Redneck provisions in the Constitution" could be taken any other way than a racial slur describing white people. I'm just playing the same game they play from the other side of the spectrum.

[drauz]

Oh, the use of the word was for sure racist though it was only used in response to her explaining in her own way what Redneck meant to us republicans that are afraid of change.

I really don't see how "Redneck provisions in the Constitution" could be taken any other way than a racial slur describing white people. I'm just playing the same game they play from the other side of the spectrum.

Could mean poor and uneducated. That is what I took it as.

[Tisket]

Ok, so how many times do we have to say nigger before it becomes normal again?


Never. It's always been used to dehumanize an entire swath of society. It's never been okay.

[Neveragain]

You used nigger because Time4fun used redneck. Redneck isn't a racist term. It's more of an economic term. It is used mostly by well off white people to disparage a lower economic group usually from the south (though it has more recently been turned around, much like how black people say nigga).

Its like me tapping you on the shoulder and in return you punch me in the face. You have a very hard time with proportionality.

Wait, you mean I return responses that are out of proportion? Really?

[Gelston]

Wait, you mean I return responses that are out of proportion? Really?

Do you really need people to spell this out for you? Are you five?

[tyrant-201]

Do you really need people to spell this out for you? Are you five?

I think he's being sarcastic, as if it's something that's supposed to be cute/clever.

[Neveragain]

Do you really need people to spell this out for you? Are you five?

Quit being so anti-sarcasm

[Neveragain]

Can we settle on Negroid? or Negro? I do feel for the spanish speaking folks, they are forever racists.

[Gelston]

I think he's being sarcastic, as if it's something that's supposed to be cute/clever.

No, I think he is being a racist dipshit trying to mask it behind sarcasm. Its cool though. He'll go change his PC name again soon enough and pretend to be new again.

[Neveragain]

No, I think he is being a racist dipshit trying to mask it behind sarcasm. Its cool though. He'll go change his PC name again soon enough and pretend to be new again.

No, I'm being sarcastic and it's obviously working well.

[drauz]

No, I'm being sarcastic and it's obviously working well.

No, you were racist and now you are being sarcastic.

[Neveragain]

No, you were racist and now you are being sarcastic.

So I'm no longer a racist? Wow, do I feel better now.

[tyrant-201]

No, I'm being sarcastic and it's obviously working well.

Except the word "negro" means black in spanish.

Black is an accepted term in english. So.. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

[Neveragain]

Except the word "negro" means black in spanish.

Black is an accepted term in english. So.. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Maybe the point is that the language changes so often for the sole purpose of keeping the race baiters employed. Or maybe I'm racist, or maybe it's white lash, or black lash, or maybe I identify as a Spanish speaking person.

[Taernath]

It's heartwarming that both sides of the aisle can come together in recognition of how retarded Pirate is.

[Tisket]

It's heartwarming that both sides of the aisle can come together in recognition of how retarded Pirate is.

I'm just glad someone knows the difference between "aisle" and "isle."

[Neveragain]

It's heartwarming that both sides of the aisle can come together in recognition of how retarded Pirate is.

Holy shit you used the R word.

It's not easy being a unifier.

[drauz]

So I'm no longer a racist? Wow, do I feel better now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=621LzO0qWnU

[tyrant-201]

I'm just glad someone knows the difference between "aisle" and "isle."

maybe we should send him to Racist Aisle.

[Tisket]

I'm pretty sure he's already a resident.

[Neveragain]

maybe we should send him to Racist Aisle.

Sounds like an adventure, where is this racist I'll located?

[drauz]

Sounds like an adventure, where is this racist I'll located?

Its in Syria.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8544859,38.4581479,6264m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

[Neveragain]

Its in Syria.

Can't be, Syria is neither an island nor peninsula.

[drauz]

Can't be, Syria is neither an island nor peninsula.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=621LzO0qWnU

[Neveragain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=621LzO0qWnU

Come on Drauz, I was promised an Isle.

Honestly, I'm dreaming of a place where all us racists sit around calling each other kikes, niggers, dagos, crackers..........while we laugh about not missing the uptight cunts from words hurt me land.

[drauz]

Come on Drauz, I was promised an Isle.

Honestly, I'm dreaming of a place where all us racists sit around calling each other kikes, niggers, dagos, crackers..........while we laugh about not missing the uptight cunts from words hurt me land.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8544859,38.4581479,6264m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

[Neveragain]

Wow, that doesn't look to bad. Nice island with olive groves right on the Euphrates river. I'm sure after I tell the story of the guy that celebrates something he doesn't believe in to the local Syrians they will leave me be, after we share the laughter.

[Neveragain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUEbpOzZlU0

[Ravenwood]

time4fun calls people racist (or any other "ist") to simply shut down any conversation she doesn't agree with.

"Vote for Hillary!"
"no thank you.. I'm voting for this guy"
"SEXIST!"

"I like President Obama!"
"I do not agree with his policies"
"RACIST!!"

When losing an argument, liberals will almost always do at least one of the following things. Nice to know they have at least some consistency even if their beliefs are riddled with hypocrisy.

They lie and/or attempt to confuse the issue

They blame Bush/now Trump

And if all else fails they play the race card.

Freedom of speech and the other rights endowed by our Creator and Constitution only applies to them, you see. Not to us lowly,uneducated, racist rednecks.

Colon Caperdick is applauded by them for taking a knee for our Pledge of Allegiance but Tim Tebow is reviled for attempting to exercise that same right to give thanks to God.

Similarly, musicians are lauded for refusing to perform at Trumps inauguration but cake artists arent given the same artistic freedoms.

Lastly, political correctness and everyone offended by every little thing is one of the major things wrong with this country today.

Political correctness is a form of brainwashing where only the acceptable narrative is rewarded while anything else is denigrated. People getting offended at the drop of a hat is an extension of that.

Who cares if youre offended? I sure as hell dont. You'll either get over it or you wont.

https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo

[tyrant-201]

When losing an argument, liberals will almost always do at least one of the following things. Nice to know they have at least some consistency even if their beliefs are riddled with hypocrisy.

They lie and/or attempt to confuse the issue

They blame Bush/now Trump

And if all else fails they play the race card.

Freedom of speech and the other rights endowed by our Creator and Constitution only applies to them, you see. Not to us lowly,uneducated, racist rednecks.

Colon Caperdick is applauded by them for taking a knee for our Pledge of Allegiance but Tim Tebow is reviled for attempting to exercise that same right to give thanks to God.

Similarly, musicians are lauded for refusing to perform at Trumps inauguration but cake artists arent given the same artistic freedoms.

Lastly, political correctness and everyone offended by every little thing is one of the major things wrong with this country today.

Political correctness is a form of brainwashing where only the acceptable narrative is rewarded while anything else is denigrated. People getting offended at the drop of a hat is an extension of that.

Who cares if youre offended? I sure as hell dont. You'll either get over it or you wont.

https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo

I'm a liberal.

I'm not offended.

Free speech means free speech. Even for the ignorant and uneducated.

FWIW, I wouldn't vote for Bush, Obama, Clinton or Trump at this point.

[Ravenwood]

I'm a liberal.

I'm not offended.

Free speech means free speech. Even for the ignorant and uneducated.

FWIW, I wouldn't vote for Bush, Obama, Clinton or Trump at this point.

You might have liberal leanings but from what Ive seen from your posts on here, youre more of a libertarian than you care to admit. I bet you a political spectrum test would show that too.

[Warriorbird]

You might have liberal leanings but from what Ive seen from your posts on here, youre more of a libertarian than you care to admit. I bet you a political spectrum test would show that too.

Left libertarians exist as well (though the right version tend to want to pretend they don't.)

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel would be two recent examples.

[Methais]

The analogy would be if you refused to allow gay people to give a speech in your bakery. We're not talking about applicants with X view not being accepted as students; that is, the service provided by the entity in question.

Gay people: Will you sell me a gay cake?

Baker: No!

Latrin: Discrimination!



Non-muslims: Will you sell me some beer and pork?

Muslim cashier: NO!

Latrin: That's different!

[Neveragain]

Bus driver: Sorry black person you must ride at the back of the bus.
Latrin: Racism and discrimination.

Grocery store: You drink and eat pork you can't stand in this line
Latrin: Nobody is being refused service.

[Ravenwood]

Gay people: Will you sell me a gay cake?

Baker: No!

Latrin: Discrimination!



Non-muslims: Will you sell me some beer and pork?

Muslim cashier: NO!

Latrin: That's different!


8296

[Tenlaar]

Gay people: Will you sell me a gay cake?

Baker: No!

Latrin: Discrimination!



Non-muslims: Will you sell me some beer and pork?

Muslim cashier: NO!

Latrin: That's different!

Maybe those would be comparable situations if the baker had said "I personally would prefer not to handle your cake, but if you step four feet to your left there is a baker who will be happy to help you." Which is what you would do in the event that a terrible cashier at a store had the audacity to infringe upon your God given right to apparently think that what you think matters is all that should matter.

[Neveragain]

Maybe those would be comparable situations if the baker had said "I personally would prefer not to handle your cake, but if you step four feet to your left there is a baker who will be happy to help you." Which is what you would do in the event that a terrible cashier at a store had the audacity to infringe upon your God given right to apparently think that what you think matters is all that should matter.

The black drinking fountain is just 4 steps to the left, no big deal.

[Tenlaar]

The black drinking fountain is just 4 steps to the left, no big deal.

That is an excellent response that has nothing to do with him acting like being denied service and using a different register are the same thing.

[Neveragain]

That is an excellent response that has nothing to do with him acting like being denied service and using a different register are the same thing.

But the drinking fountain is just 4 feet away, nobody is being denied their water.

The back of the bus is just a few extra steps, nobody is being denied bus service.

[Methais]

Fairly lame attempt Drauz. One of the speakers literally warned people to avoid large groups of black people that they don't know and cities with large black populations.

So if you were walking down the street in say...the south side of Chicago, and a group of black guys (or arabs, or even crackers) you didn't know were coming your way you'd just be like WHAT'S UP HOMEYS?!

[Neveragain]

The other bakery that bakes gay cakes is just around the corner, nobody is being denied cake.

[Methais]

Maybe those would be comparable situations if the baker had said "I personally would prefer not to handle your cake, but if you step four feet to your left there is a baker who will be happy to help you." Which is what you would do in the event that a terrible cashier at a store had the audacity to infringe upon your God given right to apparently think that what you think matters is all that should matter.

What God given right are you referring to? The God given right to have a specific bakery bake a cake for your wedding? The God given right to force other people to bend to your will?

"I personally would prefer not to handle your cake, but if you step four feet down the road there is a bakery who will be happy to help you."

Why are the muslim cashier's religious beliefs more important than the Christian baker's?

The answer is the same answer as to why only Christian bakeries were targeted, all while videos of gay people in Muslim bakeries being denied the same service for the same reasons they were denied in Christian bakeries got swept under the rug.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4Gmya_0hs

[Parkbandit]

Maybe those would be comparable situations if the baker had said "I personally would prefer not to handle your cake, but if you step four feet to your left there is a baker who will be happy to help you." Which is what you would do in the event that a terrible cashier at a store had the audacity to infringe upon your God given right to apparently think that what you think matters is all that should matter.

During the interview process will now be: "do you have any objections to handling pork or pork products?" "Do you have any objections to handling alcohol?"

Problem solved.

If you can't perform your job like your co workers, then find another job or don't be shocked when you are made available to the industry.

[Ravenwood]

What God given right are you referring to? The God given right to have a specific bakery bake a cake for your wedding? The God given right to force other people to bend to your will?

"I personally would prefer not to handle your cake, but if you step four feet down the road there is a bakery who will be happy to help you."

Why are the muslim cashier's religious beliefs more important than the Christian baker's?

The answer is the same answer as to why only Christian bakeries were targeted, all while videos of gay people in Muslim bakeries being denied the same service for the same reasons they were denied in Christian bakeries got swept under the rug.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4Gmya_0hs

And lets be totally honest here, how hard can it be to find a gay baker? Probably about as hard as finding a gay hairdresser.

All jokes aside, It seems to me its in the best interests of gay people to support gay businesses and employees every chance they get.

[Warriorbird]

And lets be totally honest here, how hard can it be to find a gay baker? Probably about as hard as finding a gay hairdresser.

All jokes aside, It seems to me its in the best interests of gay people to support gay businesses and employees every chance they get.

Change out gay for some other minority (or majority) words and re analyze how Libertarian that statement is.

[Taernath]

Change out gay for some other minority (or majority) words and re analyze how Libertarian that statement is.

It's pretty Libertarian actually. They claim the free market will fix anything, but that stance is mostly just a dodge because they're not personally affected by being a minority. Same thing with 'states rights'.

[drauz]

It's pretty Libertarian actually. They claim the free market will fix anything, but that stance is mostly just a dodge because they're not personally affected by being a minority. Same thing with 'states rights'.

Didn't the free market fix the problem though? They are out of business.

[Taernath]

Didn't the free market fix the problem though? They are out of business.

The court ordered fine fixed the problem, not the free market. The money they made from donations is being held in an escrow account until the end of appeals which I believe are still ongoing.

[drauz]

The court ordered fine fixed the problem, not the free market. The money they made from donations was being held in an escrow account until the end of appeals which I believe are still ongoing.

How did that fix the problem? They got 500k in donations for an under 200k fine. That seems like they would have had plenty of money to pay the fine. Why would they go out of business?

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/10/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_bakery.html


In 2015, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in damages to the lesbian couple. The Kleins paid the damages last year, but the Bowman-Cryers have yet to receive the award. The money will remain in a government escrow account until the end of appeals.

So they still have almost 400k... Sounds like their business dried up and they didn't want to just waste that money on a failing business. So again, I submit the free market took care of it.

[Taernath]

How did that fix the problem? They got 500k in donations for an under 200k fine. That seems like they would have had plenty of money to pay the fine. Why would they go out of business?

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/10/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_bakery.html



So they still have almost 400k... Sounds like their business dried up and they didn't want to just waste that money on a failing business. So again, I submit the free market took care of it.

The donations are in an escrow, like I said. They don't have access until after appeals, which are ongoing. The $135k+ they paid came from their own money. I don't think their bakery was making enough money even before the controversy to pay that with no problems.

[drauz]

The donations are in an escrow, like I said. They don't have access until after appeals, which are ongoing. The $135k+ they paid came from their own money. I don't think their bakery was making enough money even before the controversy to pay that with no problems.

I couldn't find that except on a couple blogs. All the news articles say that the fine is in escrow during the appeals process(like the article I linked). Not the entire donation amount...

Another article that says just the fine amount:

http://www.advocate.com/marriage-equality/2015/9/30/sweetcakes-melissa-owners-refuse-pay-fine


BOLI commissioner Brad Avakian denied the request, pointing out the money the couple raised via crowdfunding sites and ordering that the money they owed be held in escrow, as the Kleins appeal the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

[Taernath]

Maybe I'm wrong then and they do have access to their donations:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/12/31/lawyer-for-christian-bakers-who-were-forced-to-pay-nearly-137000-to-lesbian-couple-reveals-most-shocking-element-of-the-case/


If the Kleins win, the government could be forced to return the $136,927.07, though it’s quite possible that the state will appeal in that instance. Plainly stated: this battle could go on for quite some time.

It still looks like the reason they're closing up is because of government regulations. Maybe they decided to get out while they still had money rather than continue fighting donation-draining court battles. If that's the case then it's hardly the free market calling the shots here.

[drauz]

Maybe I'm wrong then and they do have access to their donations:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/12/31/lawyer-for-christian-bakers-who-were-forced-to-pay-nearly-137000-to-lesbian-couple-reveals-most-shocking-element-of-the-case/


It still looks like the reason they're closing up is because of government regulations. Maybe they decided to get out while they still had money rather than continue fighting donation-draining court battles. If that's the case then it's hardly the free market calling the shots here.

Well they are still fighting it, so that seems unlikely. I would guess that either my initial reason or that TONS of gay couples started trying to get a cake from them. Either way, the free market took care of it and not the courts.

[Taernath]

Well they are still fighting it, so that seems unlikely. I would guess that either my initial reason or that TONS of gay couples started trying to get a cake from them. Either way, the free market took care of it and not the courts.

The free market taking care of it wouldn't have involved the courts at all.

[Gelston]

The free market taking care of it wouldn't have involved the courts at all.

It was a free market court.

[Parkbandit]

The free market taking care of it wouldn't have involved the courts at all.

Isn't that the point Libertarians would make? We wouldn't need to involve the courts, the free market would have taken care of it.

[Taernath]

Isn't that the point Libertarians would make? We wouldn't need to involve the courts, the free market would have taken care of it.

That's why I was saying the bakery closing down wasn't an example of the free market.

[Tenlaar]

During the interview process will now be: "do you have any objections to handling pork or pork products?" "Do you have any objections to handling alcohol?"

Problem solved.

If you can't perform your job like your co workers, then find another job or don't be shocked when you are made available to the industry.

You are not the business owner. You don't get to have the stance of "do it how I think you should or get another job" because it's not your business. If the business owner is fine with it then you can be fine with it too or shop somewhere else, I suppose. But saying that the employee is somehow in the wrong for something that the business owner is fine with is ridiculous.

A minor working a register can't ring up alcohol. How many of you would be OUTRAGED!!! by a sign asking that you use another register if your purchase contains alcohol in that situation?

[Tisket]

You are not the business owner. You don't get to have the stance of "do it how I think you should or get another job" because it's not your business. If the business owner is fine with it then you can be fine with it too or shop somewhere else, I suppose. But saying that the employee is somehow in the wrong for something that the business owner is fine with is ridiculous.

A minor working a register can't ring up alcohol. How many of you would be OUTRAGED!!! by a sign asking that you use another register if your purchase contains alcohol in that situation?

Honestly, I don't really pay attention to signs at an open register. If I stood in line only to get up to the cashier and be told I had to go stand in another line then yes, I'd be irritated.

[Tenlaar]

I'm sure you wouldn't be alone in your irritation at your unwillingness to be aware of your surroundings.

[Tisket]

I'm sure you wouldn't be alone in your irritation at your unwillingness to be aware of your surroundings.

It's not unwillingness but just a general busyness. Because I don't like grocery shopping I usually buy a lot. I don't know about stores where you are but here you unload all your groceries yourself at most stores. So I'm usually busy doing that.

[Tisket]

I'm sure you wouldn't be alone in your irritation at your unwillingness to be aware of your surroundings.

I know you are being snarky but seriously, you try grocery shopping for a family of four, usually with one or more of them "helping", and then tell me you notice everything in your surroundings.

[Neveragain]

I'm sure you wouldn't be alone in your irritation at your unwillingness to be aware of your surroundings.

I remember a time when liberals were actually consistent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeT5otk2R1g

[Parkbandit]

You are not the business owner. You don't get to have the stance of "do it how I think you should or get another job" because it's not your business. If the business owner is fine with it then you can be fine with it too or shop somewhere else, I suppose. But saying that the employee is somehow in the wrong for something that the business owner is fine with is ridiculous.

Absolutely true. If an owner wants to be accommodating to every employee's whim.. then let him.


A minor working a register can't ring up alcohol. How many of you would be OUTRAGED!!! by a sign asking that you use another register if your purchase contains alcohol in that situation?

I've never, ever had that occur to me once in my entire life. Probably because you only have to be 18 to sell alcohol and most stores I go to, the cashiers are always 18+ or just don't care about the law.

:shrug:

[Parkbandit]

Honestly, I don't really pay attention to signs at an open register. If I stood in line only to get up to the cashier and be told I had to go stand in another line then yes, I'd be irritated.

I BET YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WITH 12 ITEMS THAT ALWAYS GOES TO THE 10 ITEMS OR LESS LANE!

ADMIT IT!!!

[Tisket]

I BET YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WITH 12 ITEMS THAT ALWAYS GOES TO THE 10 ITEMS OR LESS LANE!

ADMIT IT!!!

I wish I could get out of a grocery store with less than 150 items in my cart :(

[Kembal]

Absolutely true. If an owner wants to be accommodating to every employee's whim.. then let him.


I'd be very surprised if any grocery store owner allowed an cashier to say they won't handle this product or that product. Owner would be in their rights to fire the employee immediately - basic function of the job.

Bakery owner needs to bake wedding cakes for all couples, gay or straight.
Cashier needs to handle and ring up all items, no matter if they have a religious objection to the item.

There's no difference between the two scenarios.

[Methais]

You are not the business owner. You don't get to have the stance of "do it how I think you should or get another job" because it's not your business. If the business owner is fine with it then you can be fine with it too or shop somewhere else, I suppose. But saying that the employee is somehow in the wrong for something that the business owner is fine with is ridiculous.

A minor working a register can't ring up alcohol. How many of you would be OUTRAGED!!! by a sign asking that you use another register if your purchase contains alcohol in that situation?

One is against the law. The other is someone being a cunt.

If there was a store that sold freshly murdered raw puppies (and a bunch of other stuff), and you needed a job, would you:

A) Get a job there anyway but ask for special rules to be made for yourself?

Or

B) Go work somewhere else?

[Gelston]

I'd be very surprised if any grocery store owner allowed an cashier to say they won't handle this product or that product. Owner would be in their rights to fire the employee immediately - basic function of the job.

Bakery owner needs to bake wedding cakes for all couples, gay or straight.
Cashier needs to handle and ring up all items, no matter if they have a religious objection to the item.

There's no difference between the two scenarios.

Except the bakery, it is the owner's not wanting to do it, and as it is their store they shouldn't have to. If that Muslim employee owned the supermarket, they wouldn't have the items they religiously objected to in the store for sale if they didn't want those items there.

[Kembal]

Except the bakery, it is the owner's not wanting to do it, and as it is their store they shouldn't have to. If that Muslim employee owned the supermarket, they wouldn't have the items they religiously objected to in the store for sale if they didn't want those items there.

There's a difference between those two situations. You have to remember this guiding rule: a business is a public accommodation.

1. A Muslim could operate a grocery store and not stock alcohol and pork, and would be in their rights to do so. Similarly, a Hindu can operate a grocery store and not stock any meat items. Both of these exist today. None of the non-stocked items would be for sale to anyone at the store, thus it would not violate any discrimination laws.

2. The bakery owner would be selling to one type of customer (straight) and not selling to another type of customer (gay). That violates the principle above.

You can substitute any categories you want in the parentheses (white/black, male/female, etc.). Reason for the denial of service doesn't matter.

Otherwise, you just end up legitimating whites only lunch counters.