Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Stormrider wrote:

Albatross wrote:What I don't get is the whole 'we should let racist scumbags say whatever they want, discriminate against whoever they want, because that's what freedom is all about' guff.

Why? Why should you let them? You could get together as a society and decide that you don't want that sort of thing to take place in your country. The U.S. Constitution seems to be increasingly being treated as holy scripture by certain sections of American society. It wasn't carved out the living rock by lightning bolts - it was constructed by a group of wealthy merchants, academics and such.

I believe in pragmatism.

What happens when you set a political precedent by censoring speech? You get total censorship on anything somewhat offensive.

No you don't. That doesn't follow at all. There are forms of speech and expression which are not allowed, both here and in the US.

I get real tired of people complaining that someone offended them, there's no right to not be offended.

Only because the 'founding fathers' didn't set that out in the US constitution. But they could have. Quite easily.

I don't like it that there are rascist donkey-caves here in America, but the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to say whatever they like (as long as it doesn't encite a riot).

So not 'whatever they like', just whatever is allowed by law.

I'm still trying to figure out what segregation means...

"Systematic isolation of one group, especially a racial or ethnic minority, from the rest of society." - Chambers dictionary.

Albatross wrote:What I don't get is the whole 'we should let racist scumbags say whatever they want, discriminate against whoever they want, because that's what freedom is all about' guff.

Why? Why should you let them? You could get together as a society and decide that you don't want that sort of thing to take place in your country. The U.S. Constitution seems to be increasingly being treated as holy scripture by certain sections of American society. It wasn't carved out the living rock by lightning bolts - it was constructed by a group of wealthy merchants, academics and such.

I believe in pragmatism.

Its called the First Amendment. Say what you want. Others are free to point and laugh at you for saying it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:What I don't get is the whole 'we should let racist scumbags say whatever they want, discriminate against whoever they want, because that's what freedom is all about' guff.

Why? Why should you let them? You could get together as a society and decide that you don't want that sort of thing to take place in your country. The U.S. Constitution seems to be increasingly being treated as holy scripture by certain sections of American society. It wasn't carved out the living rock by lightning bolts - it was constructed by a group of wealthy merchants, academics and such.

I believe in pragmatism.

Its called the First Amendment. Say what you want. Others are free to point and laugh at you for saying it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't know who Rand Paul is, he seemed to come out of nowhere ( I don't watch the news much, so I'm probably showing my ignorance here), and I'm no fan of the tea party movement, but I don't see what the big deal is.

If you have a business and you make a point of discriminating in hiring or with customers, you're not going to last that long these days. The constitution says you can say whatever you want, but your customers are pretty much going to dictate what you can say and still stay in business.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I think it is a statement of libertarianism ( Though I think that some individuals in the tea party movement are highly hypocritical with their libertarianism)

Yanno, I was a pretty big fan of Ron Pauls, but I have to say after reading that, Im not sure if thats a good idea. I know it was his SON that was making as asshat out of himself, but thats one of those where you kindda think his father played a part in that logic. Not good at all

KingCracker wrote:Yanno, I was a pretty big fan of Ron Pauls, but I have to say after reading that, Im not sure if thats a good idea. I know it was his SON that was making as asshat out of himself, but thats one of those where you kindda think his father played a part in that logic. Not good at all

I did not know he was Ron Paul's son. I thought that might be the case, but I didn't know.

My problem with Ron Paul is that I would see his point if he was really libertarian, but he's not.

I don't see what the big deal is. I'm sure his comments would have played very well to any one of the "tea party" rallies he's stumped at.

OK so wait... Rand Paul wants to say businesses should be able to pick and choose their clients even if the basis is the most abhorrent sort, and this is cause for him to be tarred and feathered...

But when people say they want to KILL people based on their bloodlines that is protected speech and we should coddle and try to understand them?

I don't know him, nor do I care. But anytime you give a Democratic party strategist disguising himself as an impartial journalist I'm onside.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/05/21/rand-paul-rips-bias-george-stephanopoulos-your-talking-points-come-m

The Green Git wrote:OK so wait... Rand Paul wants to say businesses should be able to pick and choose their clients even if the basis is the most abhorrent sort, and this is cause for him to be tarred and feathered...

But when people say they want to KILL people based on their bloodlines that is protected speech and we should coddle and try to understand them?

I don't know which people have ever said that. Death threats are not protected speech.

Umm. I think GG was referring to the threats made by that terrorist nutjob group who targeted the creators of South Park and CC sucking the man pole of said group by censoring the show instead of giving a big middle finger to those bitching about the show.

Obviously their freedom of expression (and death threats) was protected by an Amendment that doesn't even pertain to them.

Fateweaver wrote:Umm. I think GG was referring to the threats made by that terrorist nutjob group who targeted the creators of South Park and CC sucking the man pole of said group by censoring the show instead of giving a big middle finger to those bitching about the show.

Obviously their freedom of expression (and death threats) was protected by an Amendment that doesn't even pertain to them.

No, actually, that's false. The censorship was undertaken by Comedy Central, not the US government. Most likely to avoid any potential incident. Corporations are cautious too, and the First Amendment, by and large, does not apply to private actors.

And, before anyone says anything, the refusal of service is not necessarily speech.

The Green Git wrote:OK so wait... Rand Paul wants to say businesses should be able to pick and choose their clients even if the basis is the most abhorrent sort, and this is cause for him to be tarred and feathered...

But when people say they want to KILL people based on their bloodlines that is protected speech and we should coddle and try to understand them?

Yep. That's why you aren't in jail when you say we should nuke the mideast.


ITT whitey don' surf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:Yanno, I was a pretty big fan of Ron Pauls, but I have to say after reading that, Im not sure if thats a good idea. I know it was his SON that was making as asshat out of himself, but thats one of those where you kindda think his father played a part in that logic. Not good at all

No one should have been a fan of his father. He was an imbecile that played off the fringes of the conservative movement. He had really no idea what to do once he got into office and most of his talking points were mind numbing (gold standard? Really?).

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Umm. I think GG was referring to the threats made by that terrorist nutjob group who targeted the creators of South Park and CC sucking the man pole of said group by censoring the show instead of giving a big middle finger to those bitching about the show.

Obviously their freedom of expression (and death threats) was protected by an Amendment that doesn't even pertain to them.

No, actually, that's false. The censorship was undertaken by Comedy Central, not the US government. Most likely to avoid any potential incident. Corporations are cautious too, and the First Amendment, by and large, does not apply to private actors.

And, before anyone says anything, the refusal of service is not necessarily speech.

Well, yeah - there is this. I mean, if a private business-owner wants to put a banner in the front-window of his store that says 'I don't like Negroes', that's different to refusing to serve a person based on the colour of their skin.

Its even arguable that a sign stating 'Blacks not welcome' is not a necessary refusal of service. You can serve someone who isn't welcome in your establishment.

Update, in 2002. rand paul declared he would have voted against the fair housing act. "Compancies should have the right to not sell houses based on race."

Frazz, You souldn't support something you think is wrong just because it's your country.

I would agree with you, but you're from mexico and they are American, just isn't right or fair.

Rand paul says Obama's critisism of BP is Un-American.

Frazzled wrote:I don't know him, nor do I care. But anytime you give a Democratic party strategist disguising himself as an impartial journalist I'm onside.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/05/21/rand-paul-rips-bias-george-stephanopoulos-your-talking-points-come-m

Well yeah, this is the new MSNBC game that they learned from FOX. It sucks but there you have it.

Despite the MSNBC game, it remains Paul's opinion, presented in his own words. You can complain about MSNBC all you want, but ultimately you don't vote for media outlets. You vote for politicians, so what matters is Paul's opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:Rand paul says Obama's critisism of BP is Un-American.

A libertarian is calling things 'un-American'?

Worst libertarian ever.

sebster wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:Rand paul says Obama's critisism of BP is Un-American.

A libertarian is calling things 'un-American'?

Worst libertarian ever.

I happen to agree with Rand Paul. I think that an individual should have the right to say and do what they wish on their property, so long as their words and deeds don't contradict other laws.

There's two main reasons that I feel that way:

1) Governments need constant practice with protecting/respecting their citizens' freedom. When they start thinking it's ok to take away one "minor" freedom to protect the "greater good" it sets them on a path of thinking that they should not be on. The preservation of personal freedom is the single most important function of government. While I'm no fan of racism, I'd rather be free among racists, than a slave amongst loving hippies.

2) You can't force people to think right. If somebody is a racist, they're a racist. You can't just say "NO" at them loudly and make it stop. There's no point to forcing them to do something they don't want to do, it just builds resentment and perpetuates the problem. The solution to somebody not wanting to let black people into their store isn't to force them to allow it, it's to foster a thoughtful, intelligent society that no longer produces racists.

Only because the 'founding fathers' didn't set that out in the US constitution. But they could have. Quite easily.

It's a simple matter of faith, but it's not unfounded.

You can pretend like the FFs were a bunch of slave owning yokel jerks, and their ideas on government were unexceptional and arbitrary, but the fact remains that their system was the basis for what is the most powerful nation in the world today.

Who knows, perhaps it was a matter of abundant natural resources, happy geopolitical coincidences and general good fortune, but the fact is that the FFs set something in motion which was a massive success.

I'm sure it's a bit frustrating for a Brit to see how proud Americans are of our history, given that it starts with us beating you in two wars, and while I could point out that you're being willfilly disrespectful by trying to diminish a group of men you know Americans greatly respect, I'll appeal instead to your logic: even if the FFs happened upon the formula by dumb luck, it's a formula that worked a lot better than what your country has been trying for the past 200+ years.

That said, don't worry. We have people in office now who have even less respect for the founding than you appear to, and it won't be long before we join you in the grey, rainy irrelevancy you've spent the last 60 odd years in.

Phryxis wrote:I happen to agree with Rand Paul. I think that an individual should have the right to say and do what they wish on their property, so long as their words and deeds don't contradict other laws.

There's two main reasons that I feel that way:

1) Governments need constant practice with protecting/respecting their citizens' freedom. When they start thinking it's ok to take away one "minor" freedom to protect the "greater good" it sets them on a path of thinking that they should not be on. The preservation of personal freedom is the single most important function of government. While I'm no fan of racism, I'd rather be free among racists, than a slave amongst loving hippies.

2) You can't force people to think right. If somebody is a racist, they're a racist. You can't just say "NO" at them loudly and make it stop. There's no point to forcing them to do something they don't want to do, it just builds resentment and perpetuates the problem. The solution to somebody not wanting to let black people into their store isn't to force them to allow it, it's to foster a thoughtful, intelligent society that no longer produces racists.

Only because the 'founding fathers' didn't set that out in the US constitution. But they could have. Quite easily.

It's a simple matter of faith, but it's not unfounded.

You can pretend like the FFs were a bunch of slave owning yokel jerks, and their ideas on government were unexceptional and arbitrary, but the fact remains that their system was the basis for what is the most powerful nation in the world today.

Who knows, perhaps it was a matter of abundant natural resources, happy geopolitical coincidences and general good fortune, but the fact is that the FFs set something in motion which was a massive success.

I'm sure it's a bit frustrating for a Brit to see how proud Americans are of our history, given that it starts with us beating you in two wars, and while I could point out that you're being willfilly disrespectful by trying to diminish a group of men you know Americans greatly respect, I'll appeal instead to your logic: even if the FFs happened upon the formula by dumb luck, it's a formula that worked a lot better than what your country has been trying for the past 200+ years.

That said, don't worry. We have people in office now who have even less respect for the founding than you appear to, and it won't be long before we join you in the grey, rainy irrelevancy you've spent the last 60 odd years in.

+ fething 1.

I couldn't have said it better myself. My version would have been a lot more anti-Obama and pro-racial profiling.

Fateweaver wrote:

Phryxis wrote:I happen to agree with Rand Paul. I think that an individual should have the right to say and do what they wish on their property, so long as their words and deeds don't contradict other laws.

There's two main reasons that I feel that way:

1) Governments need constant practice with protecting/respecting their citizens' freedom. When they start thinking it's ok to take away one "minor" freedom to protect the "greater good" it sets them on a path of thinking that they should not be on. The preservation of personal freedom is the single most important function of government. While I'm no fan of racism, I'd rather be free among racists, than a slave amongst loving hippies.

2) You can't force people to think right. If somebody is a racist, they're a racist. You can't just say "NO" at them loudly and make it stop. There's no point to forcing them to do something they don't want to do, it just builds resentment and perpetuates the problem. The solution to somebody not wanting to let black people into their store isn't to force them to allow it, it's to foster a thoughtful, intelligent society that no longer produces racists.

Only because the 'founding fathers' didn't set that out in the US constitution. But they could have. Quite easily.

It's a simple matter of faith, but it's not unfounded.

You can pretend like the FFs were a bunch of slave owning yokel jerks, and their ideas on government were unexceptional and arbitrary, but the fact remains that their system was the basis for what is the most powerful nation in the world today.

Who knows, perhaps it was a matter of abundant natural resources, happy geopolitical coincidences and general good fortune, but the fact is that the FFs set something in motion which was a massive success.

I'm sure it's a bit frustrating for a Brit to see how proud Americans are of our history, given that it starts with us beating you in two wars, and while I could point out that you're being willfilly disrespectful by trying to diminish a group of men you know Americans greatly respect, I'll appeal instead to your logic: even if the FFs happened upon the formula by dumb luck, it's a formula that worked a lot better than what your country has been trying for the past 200+ years.

That said, don't worry. We have people in office now who have even less respect for the founding than you appear to, and it won't be long before we join you in the grey, rainy irrelevancy you've spent the last 60 odd years in.

+ fething 1.

I couldn't have said it better myself. My version would have been a lot more anti-Obama and pro-racial profiling.

+1


Ahem....

Buck Ofama

Use a color swatch

Phryxis wrote:
2) You can't force people to think right. If somebody is a racist, they're a racist. You can't just say "NO" at them loudly and make it stop. There's no point to forcing them to do something they don't want to do, it just builds resentment and perpetuates the problem. The solution to somebody not wanting to let black people into their store isn't to force them to allow it, it's to foster a thoughtful, intelligent society that no longer produces racists.

Interestingly, the incidence of problematic racism has declined dramatically since discrimination according to race has been outlawed. You need to keep in mind that legislation is almost never about controlling how people think, its about controlling how people act.

Phryxis wrote:
It's a simple matter of faith, but it's not unfounded.

Then its not a matter of faith.

Phryxis wrote:
Who knows, perhaps it was a matter of abundant natural resources, happy geopolitical coincidences and general good fortune, but the fact is that the FFs set something in motion which was a massive success.

The fact that they set it in motion does not indicate that their ideas, and their ideas alone were central to the success of the United States.

Phryxis wrote:
...I'll appeal instead to your logic: even if the FFs happened upon the formula by dumb luck, it's a formula that worked a lot better than what your country has been trying for the past 200+ years.

Considering the variance in population, and natural resources, that isn't necessarily true. The UK has a per capita GDP of roughly 35,000 USD while the US has a per capita GDP of roughly 45,000 USD; compare this to Luxembourg with a per capita GDP of roughly 104,512 USD. Should we emulate Luxembourg, or is the notion of success far more subjective than you are letting on?

Interestingly, the incidence of problematic racism has declined dramatically since discrimination according to race has been outlawed.

I would argue that the primary cause of this is due to social pressure and popular media, and not due to legislation.

While legislation no doubt has some small effect on people's outlook, I think it's not worth considering in relation to the damage to free speech and expression.

Then its not a matter of faith.

Well, it's not a matter of blind faith... But, there's no way to prove emperically that the FFs and the Constitution are the reasons for American prosperity. It's clear that prosperity has occured, it's a matter of faith to believe it due to the FFs vision.

Should we emulate Luxembourg, or is the notion of success far more subjective than you are letting on?

Based on your arbitrary selection of a metric of "success?" No.

I really shouldn't have to provide an argument why the US has seen great success and prosperity since its creation. In about 250 years, we have gone from being a colony to being the most financially, militarily and probably even culturally dominant country in the world.

Let's not pretend that's even in question.

Phryxis wrote:
I'm sure it's a bit frustrating for a Brit to see how proud Americans are of our history, given that it starts with us beating you in two wars, and while I could point out that you're being willfilly disrespectful by trying to diminish a group of men you know Americans greatly respect, I'll appeal instead to your logic: even if the FFs happened upon the formula by dumb luck, it's a formula that worked a lot better than what your country has been trying for the past 200+ years.

Huh?

For most of the last 200 years the Uk had the largest Empire the Earth had ever seen. That only ended after the British held out in the worst war the world had ever seen while the Americans sold to both sides and dithered about whether or not to do the right thing. A status that only ended when the Americans were bombed out of their indecision.

What a dumb thing to say.

And you at won one and at best drew on the second one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
I really shouldn't have to provide an argument why the US has seen great success and prosperity since its creation. In about 250 years, we have gone from being a colony to being the most financially, militarily and probably even culturally dominant country in the world.

Let's not pretend that's even in question.

All good things...

Each of those points will gradually fall. It happens to every nation in time.

Economically is usually the first to go.

u mad?

For most of the last 200 years the Uk had the largest Empire the Earth had ever seen.

And how's that going these days? The point I make is that the US has been ascendant for its entire history (so far), while the UK has been in decline for at least 75 years.

That only ended after the British held out in the worst war the world had ever seen while the Americans sold to both sides and dithered about whether or not to do the right thing.

Right, totally. WWII is basically the Battle of Britain, and then Americans as jerks. Flawless recounting.

Moron.

And there's the insults. You must have won this debate.

Each of those points will gradually fall. It happens to every nation in time.

On this, we agree. The US will be following the way of Britain in short order. We'll always be more prominent just on the basis of our large size and population, but the same general path of decline will be followed.

The US is an exceptional country. The jealousy is overwhelmingly hysterical.

Phryxis wrote:
I would argue that the primary cause of this is due to social pressure and popular media, and not due to legislation.

While legislation no doubt has some small effect on people's outlook, I think it's not worth considering in relation to the damage to free speech and expression.

I'm not arguing that it had any affect on people's outlook. I'm arguing that it rendered any given person's outlook irrelevant. People that wanted to actively discriminate would not be able to do so without fear of prosecution, and people that didn't want to do so simply wouldn't care; thereby minimizing the issue of resentment.

Its important to note that social pressure and popular media had a far more regional bias prior to the last 10-15 years, and it seems to me that most race issues were essentially gone by that time.

Phryxis wrote:
Well, it's not a matter of blind faith... But, there's no way to prove emperically that the FFs and the Constitution are the reasons for American prosperity. It's clear that prosperity has occured, it's a matter of faith to believe it due to the FFs vision.

Ah, right, I see what you're getting at.

Phryxis wrote:
Based on your arbitrary selection of a metric of "success?" No.

I really shouldn't have to provide an argument why the US has seen great success and prosperity since its creation. In about 250 years, we have gone from being a colony to being the most financially, militarily and probably even culturally dominant country in the world.

Let's not pretend that's even in question.

It becomes a question when you claim the US is, or has been, more successful than another nation. As soon as you look at the matter as anything other than a yes/no question, there must be a metric. Otherwise success is simply a matter of qualitative judgment based on some set of assumed goals. The US has been a success because it has fulfilled what most people assume to be its goals. But its difficult to call the UK less successful without presuming they had the same goals as the US.

Dominance is not tacit to success unless dominance is one of your objectives.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

And I'm not saying people who wear fez' are terrorists.....