2016 Election
You should know by now that this is the way conservatives argue. He knows what you meant and probably agrees with you on some level but he can't actually say that because it's just not in his nature. So he just goes on the attack, even if it makes him look ridiculous.Quote: rxwineBut I never said as much that it was.
Quote: s2dbakerYou should know by now that this is the way conservatives argue. He knows what you meant and probably agrees with you on some level but he can't actually say that because it's just not in his nature. So he just goes on the attack, even if it makes him look ridiculous.
This is a disappointing post from you (although not entirely unexpected since you are a liberal after all). You're just throwing a hissy fit because I stated my position on gay marriage a few pages back. Get over it. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thI sure do. When a person states their argument against gay marriage, the most thoughtful response libs like you can come up with is to insinuate that the person is gay. *facepalm*
Similar to how they call you a "homophobe" if you not support the gay agenda then use the gay slur "teabagger" to describe a Tea Party member.
Quote: AZDuffmanSimilar to how they call you a "homophobe" if you not support the gay agenda then use the gay slur "teabagger" to describe a Tea Party member.
Exactly. And what's so ironic is that their subconscious must be telling them that being gay is an insult.
Quote: s2dbakerHe [Beethoven9th] knows what you [rxwine] meant and probably agrees with you on some level but he can't actually say that because it's just not in his nature.
I might also remind everyone that s2dbaker wrote this to me back on May 5th, 2013 at 7:13:50 PM, but he escaped with just a warning:
Quote: s2dbakerOnly a moronic conservatard would think that.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/6252-gun-show-loophole-rant/121/#post239538
Quote: Beethoven9thExactly. And what's so ironic is that their subconscious must be telling them that being gay is an insult.
Any normal guy knows that to call a straight guy gay is an insult. I would even wager that among the gay population for one gay guy to call another guy gay is considered an insult, though for different reasons. In the first case it is a challenge of manliness, in the second it is saying to quit acting "flaming" and high maintenance.
If you do not believe this, I would ask how the weather in Egypt is today?
Right on target as usual, AZ. Funny story:Quote: AZDuffmanI would even wager that among the gay population for one gay guy to call another guy gay is considered an insult
A friend of mind once worked a job where a gay guy and a lesbian (who were also employees) had a disagreement that quickly escalated into a major argument with personal attacks and all. The gay guy called the lesbian a "fat bull dyke" (among other things). This got him in hot water with management, but his hilarious defense was that the remark wasn't an insult at all because he's gay.
Didn't work. All the managers agreed with the lesbian that it was in fact an insult, and he ended up getting fired. lol...
Quote: AZDuffmanI would even wager that among the gay population for one gay guy to call another guy gay is considered an insult, though for different reasons. In the first case it is a challenge of manliness, in the second it is saying to quit acting "flaming" and high maintenance.
This is a new one to me. ?? I've never heard a gay guy call another gay guy, 'gay' as an insult. I'm my experience, gay guys are much more creative (and vicious) that that.
Quote: kewljThis is a new one to me. ?? I've never heard a gay guy call another gay guy, 'gay' as an insult. I'm my experience, gay guys are much more creative (and vicious) that that.
Just going by what I have seen among other "minority groups." For example, I worked as wait staff for an NAACP luncheon. Let me say upfront that they were a rude, demanding group and none of the management of the hotel cared for them. One girl who was sort of half a supervisor (lets say she was "dual rate) really didn't want to deal with them. Seems the year before they called her a "zebra." In college a friend said he saw a girl call a guy a "half-breed" out of nowhere (maybe they knew each other but who knows.) My dad said it was not uncommon to hear two black guys where he worked arguing and it end up one saying, "Your mamma is blacker than my mamma!" At one former employer women complained that one director mistreated women who had larger breasts than she did, which meant most of them were in the group the director didn't like. I have heard and seen so many other stories about women working together it boggles the mind.
All of these "oppressed groups" complain about conservative white males. But anything a straight, white male does to them is nothing compared to how they treat each other.
Shh, this isn't just entertaining but it also grants insight into what conservatives actually think. Of course it's completely wrong but if you tell them that, they'll consider the rebuke as a reinforcement of their belief system because that's how they roll. (grabs popcorn)..Quote: kewljThis is a new one to me. ??
Pray tell us Az, what do those of us with teh ghey say to each other when we're angry?
Well stated. Rand Paul believes that the constitution gives a business owner the right to discriminate on race or color as an act of free speech. Gladly you finally told it like it is . If you are late to respond I can understand you might be busy putting the "WHITE ONLY " signs back on the water fountains.
Quote: s2dbaker
Pray tell us Az, what do those of us with teh ghey say to each other when we're angry?
Why don't you tell us?
Quote: Buzzard" And that's all Rand Paul is saying. He believes that restaurants (like casinos) should be able to 86 ANYONE for whatever reason they want. I don't know why this is so hard to understand."
Well stated. Rand Paul believes that the constitution gives a business owner the right to discriminate on race or color as an act of free speech. Gladly you finally told it like it is . If you are late to respond I can understand you might be busy putting the "WHITE ONLY " signs back on the water fountains.
I have to say I feel uncomfortable with want Rand Paul wants. In a small isolated community , this type of power could easily be abused. Say a rich person with power in a small community wants to buy somebody else's land, he may have the power to order all local businesses not to do business with this person so they have to move and sell the land cheap. You walk into the small local grocery store, next closest, long drive to next town. You try to buy food, get to the register, owner says no way.
Quote: BuzzardWell stated. Rand Paul believes that the constitution gives a business owner the right to discriminate on race or color as an act of free speech. Gladly you finally told it like it is . If you are late to respond I can understand you might be busy putting the "WHITE ONLY " signs back on the water fountains.
...and Buzzard believes that the Constitution gives casinos the right to discriminate on race or color as an act of free speech. Gladly you finally told it like it is . If you are late to respond I can understand you might be busy putting the "WHITE ONLY " signs back on the water fountains at casinos.
Quote: terapinedI have to say I feel uncomfortable with want Rand Paul wants.
This is what I don't understand. Unless you & Buzzard oppose casinos being able to 86 whoever they want, then you guys are already quite comfortable with what Rand Paul wants.
Quote: BuzzardGee I don't remember saying that or anything closed to it.
OK, then maybe you can tell us right now. Do you or do you not believe that casinos should be able to 86 whoever they want?
Quote: Beethoven9thThis is what I don't understand. Unless you & Buzzard oppose casinos being able to 86 whomever they want, then you guys are already quite comfortable with what Rand Paul wants.
Oh I absolutely oppose casinos banning anyone they want on simply a whim, no explanation.
Just as a small grocery store in the middle of nowhere cannot refuse service for no good reason.
Quote: terapinedOh I absolutely oppose casinos banning anyone they want on simply a whim, no explanation.
Just as a small grocery store in the middle of nowhere cannot refuse service for no good reason.
You do??? My apologies then. I incorrectly assumed that you were OK with the status quo regarding casinos 86'ing people. So it looks like you're wrong, but at least you're consistently wrong. (hehehehehehe....j/k, bro) ;)
So you guys think casinos should be able to 86 white people but not black people?
Quote: Beethoven9thYou do??? My apologies then. I incorrectly assumed that you were OK with the status quo regarding casinos 86'ing people. So it looks like you're wrong, but at least you're consistently wrong. (hehehehehehe....j/k, bro) ;)
I don't have a problem with a casino 86'ing people. All businesses need this. There just has to be a valid reason.
Just curious, what is your view on a small grocery store in the middle of nowhere serving a small community. Should that store have the right to refuse to sell food to someone for no reason? What if that person walked to the store and has no car.
Quote: terapinedShould that store have the right to refuse to sell food to someone for no reason? What if that person walked to the store and has no car.
Perhaps in Rand Paul's neighborhood, that's the way it works.
This is what I don't understand. Casinos DON'T have to give a valid reason when they 86 someone, so I guess you do in fact have a problem with it.Quote: terapinedI don't have a problem with a casino 86'ing a people. All businesses need this. There just has to be a valid reason.
A grocery store should be able to refuse service to ANYONE they want.Quote: terapinedJust curious, what is your view on a small grocery store in the middle of nowhere serving a small community. Should that store have the right to refuse to sell food to someone for no reason? What if that person walked to the store and has no car.
Before you respond, here is where I take issue with what Buzzard keeps saying. He automatically jumps to the conclusion that I condone a store/restaurant refusing to serve blacks. (Personally, I consider this conclusion offensive because I don't.) What I do believe is that people should simply spread the word and boycott businesses who would arbitrarily refuse to serve blacks. I would gladly participate in such a boycott myself.
It's no different from saying that it's not illegal to utter the N-word. Now do I believe that people should go around calling others the N-word? Of course not! But most people don't think that the act itself should be illegal. There are other, more efficient ways to handle people who go around running off their mouths like that.
Quote: Beethoven9thWhat I do believe is that people should simply spread the word and boycott businesses who would arbitrarily refuse to serve blacks. I would gladly participate in such a boycott myself.
.
I don't know if early protests of blacks sitting at whites only lunch counters was going to move the local community. Even when national attention focused on these communities there was a lot of resistance from the locals. I think if it had, there would have never been a need for civil rights laws at all.
Quote: Beethoven9th
A grocery store should be able to refuse service to ANYONE they want.
They do. When I had the bar I could 86 (and that's what we
called it, too) anybody I wanted as long as it wasn't based
on race or sex or nationality. Dirty people, angry people,
drunk people, disruptive people, underage people, they all
got 86'd. Every business has that right.
10 years ago when we went to a local buffet all the time,
periodically people and their kids would come in and waste
huge amounts of food. They were always given a refund
and 86'd permanently. They confused 'eat all you want' with
'take all you want'. Ignorance on the hoof..
Quote: Beethoven9th
A grocery store should be able to refuse service to ANYONE they want.
.
I'm happy you answered my question honestly. I really appreciate it because I thought I made a compelling argument but you stuck to your guns.
I actually understand your point of view. My father was a Libertarian. Complete freedom.
In your world power will be abused, but that's one of the price's of total freedom.
In your world, it just would be more of a jungle out there, strong survive, weak perish.
If that's your utopia, that's fine.
That poor guy that works hard but has no car and has to shop at the local grocery store in the small community out in the middle of nowhere. I want to live in a civilized society where this person has the right to buy food and not perish. I have compassion.
Quote: rxwineI don't know if early protests of blacks sitting at whites only lunch counters was going to move the local community.
If you don't know, then you shouldn't speculate.
Quote: EvenBobThey do. When I had the bar I could 86 (and that's what we
called it, too) anybody I wanted as long as it wasn't based
on race or sex or nationality. Dirty people, angry people,
drunk people, disruptive people, underage people, they all
got 86'd. Every business has that right.
10 years ago when we went to a local buffet all the time,
periodically people and their kids would come in and waste
huge amounts of food. They were always given a refund
and 86'd permanently. They confused 'eat all you want' with
'take all you want'. Ignorance on the hoof..
I get that, 86ing for a valid reason is fine, the question I put to B9 is, can a grocery store refuse service for NO reason.
Quote: terapinedIn your world power will be abused, but that's one of the price's of total freedom.
In your world, it just would be more of a jungle out there, strong survive, weak perish.
If that's your utopia, that's fine.
That poor guy that works hard but has no car and has to shop at the local grocery store in the small community out in the middle of nowhere. I want to live in a civilized society where this person has the right to buy food and not perish. I have compassion.
I don't think you read my entire post. I took great pains to point out that I am NOT "fine" with that. As I said earlier, there are other ways to deal with store owners who do stupid things WITHOUT getting the intrusive government involved.
Also, just because a person doesn't think that the government should be stepping in to "correct" every little problem in society, it doesn't mean that such a person does NOT have compassion. I have just as much compassion for people as you do.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: terapinedIn your world power will be abused, but that's one of the price's of total freedom.
In your world, it just would be more of a jungle out there, strong survive, weak perish.
If that's your utopia, that's fine.
That poor guy that works hard but has no car and has to shop at the local grocery store in the small community out in the middle of nowhere. I want to live in a civilized society where this person has the right to buy food and not perish. I have compassion.
I don't think you read my entire post. I took great pains to point out that I am NOT "fine" with that. As I said earlier, there are other ways to deal with store owners who do stupid things WITHOUT getting the intrusive government involved.
Also, just because a person doesn't think that the government should be stepping in to "correct" every little problem in society, it doesn't mean that such a person does NOT have compassion. I have just as much compassion for people as you do.
Internet reviews will prevent abuse of power in small communitys. lol
Hey Ma, just saw on the internet that the local ABC grocery store wont sell to the Jones family because their daughter broke up with grocery owners son and the son is steaming mad. Hmm I geuss we'll just get in our hunk of junk and drive 200 miles to next town. Whats that Ma, screw the Jones, let em starve, I'm hungry, lets go to ABC grocery. Just don't piss off the son, he might raise the prices on us just due to his mood. The Jones were friends. Remember, he has total power, small community in the middle of nowhere with total freedom.
I've got a better one for you:Quote: terapinedInternet reviews will prevent abuse of power in small communitys. lol
The government can end racism in America. lol
Also, that's a pretty bizarre scenario that you've described, but how about this one:Quote: terapinedHey Ma, just saw on the internet that the local ABC grocery store wont sell to the Jones family because their daughter broke up with grocery owners son and the son is steaming mad. Hmm I geuss we'll just get in our hunk of junk and drive 200 miles to next town. Whats that Ma, screw the Jones, let em starve, I'm hungry, lets go to ABC grocery. Just don't piss off the son, he might raise the prices on us just due to his mood. The Jones were friends. Remember, he has total power, small community in the middle of nowhere with total freedom.
Let's say that a man drives 200 miles to attend a party at a person's private residence in Dallas. Then, after he arrives, the homeowner says, "You know, I've changed my mind. I don't want you in my house because you're not a Cowboys fan!" He then slams the door shut.
In your world, the government should step in and force the homeowner to let the guy in.
But this might be something for small claims court if there was an oral contract, maybe sue for the expence of driving 200 miles rt. More details please. What exactly is the conversation regarding the invite :-) Bring food and I'll let you in. Court could consider this an oral contract, food for a place to watch the game.
My example is bizarre. I'm a bizarre guy:-) I'm just trying to make a point in a fun imaginative way but its just a point.
Internet reviews don't mean jack in small remote communitys where power can be abused easily.
I understand your point of view in your example. I just don't understand the point you are making to counter my point.
Quote: terapinedAbsolutely not. Its a private home, not a business that caters to the public. No Entry.
You're missing my point. What if a PRIVATE business doesn't want to "cater to the public"? In other words, how come you're willing to force a PRIVATE business to "cater to the public", but you'll let a PRIVATE residence get off scot free?
Quote: Beethoven9thIf you don't know, then you shouldn't speculate.
This is a gambling board. People speculate with bets on winning. Maybe you don't know where you are.
Quote: rxwineThis is a gambling board. People speculate with bets on winning. Maybe you don't know where you are.
Apparently, you don't know where you are. This is the "Off-topic" section. Duh!
Quote: Beethoven9thYou're missing my point. What if a PRIVATE business doesn't want to "cater to the public"? In other words, how come you're willing to force a PRIVATE business to "cater to the public", but you'll let a PRIVATE residence get off scot free?
In my example, I believe a private business grocery store must sell to the public and can only refuse service for a valid reason.
In your example , a private residence is private.
In your mind I may be a hypocrite , but in my mind, I am not.
We simply have a difference of opinion.
Quote: Beethoven9thApparently, you don't know where you are. This is the "Off-topic" section. Duh!
For a guy who never made any serious effort to use "Diversity Tomorrow" that's pretty funny.
Typical tea party answer and nothing to do with the solution.
Hey, Joe down the street is a racist and refuses to serve blacks. Let's boycott him Wink Wink
Quote: rxwineFor a guy who never made any serious effort to use "Diversity Tomorrow" that's pretty funny.
For a guy who posts a heck of a lot more here than DT, that's even funnier.
But why? Where is this rule that states that a PRIVATE business must sell to the public? It certainly isn't in the Constitution.Quote: terapinedIn my example, I believe a private business grocery store must sell to the public and can only refuse service for a valid reason.
And why do liberals exempt PRIVATE residences from being available to the public, but not PRIVATE businesses? Do they somehow think that it's OK to be a racist in your PRIVATE residence, but not in your PRIVATE business?
For that matter, what about scholarships exclusively for black students? I don't have a problem with this at all, but by your logic, it's racist and should be open to the general public, not just black kids.
If you do in fact think that such scholarships are OK, then why is it fine for PRIVATE residences & PRIVATE scholarships to exclude certain people, but not PRIVATE businesses? Seems a little arbitrary to me.
Quote: BuzzardHey, Joe down the street is a racist and refuses to serve blacks. Let's boycott him Wink Wink
Hey look, BET (Black Entertainment Television) refuses to include any Latino or Asian programs, but Buzzard's not whining about it being racist. *wink wink*
Hey look, the United Negro College Fund refuses to award scholarships to Latino or Asian students, but Buzzard's not whining about it being racist. *wink wink*
Hey look, the Miss Black America pageant refuses to open its contest to Latino or Asian women, but Buzzard's not whining about it being racist. *wink wink*
How come you're not complaining about this blatant racism against Latinos and Asians, Buzzard? *wink wink*
Photographer court ordered to shoot gay wedding
We'll see if the supreme court takes a crack at this one.
Quote: MoosetonI couldn't help but be reminded of this case.
Photographer court ordered to shoot gay wedding
We'll see if the supreme court takes a crack at this one.
That is simply a case of some activists wanting to sue someone because they can. There are thousands upon thousands of wedding photographers around--why not simply find one that is more open to your chosen lifestyle instead of trying to ruin one that has beliefs that don't follow yours? Why is it so important to force your beliefs upon each and every person?
--you have a right to a commitment ceremony
--there are quality folks who want the work you are asking for
--some people disagree with your choice
--businesses should have the right to refuse service to whoever they like; consumers have the right to refuse to use any businesses service
I am also interested in what SCOTUS would do with this one. It may even be upheld. I just think the people should have chosen a photographer that accepted them instead of finding one that didn't just to cause trouble (or so it appears...).
Quote: Beethoven9thBut why? Where is this rule that states that a PRIVATE business must sell to the public? It certainly isn't in the Constitution..
Its not in the constitution. Tons of stuff not in the constitution. If a law does not violate the constitution, then its all good. Due to property taxes, I am childless but I am paying for my neighbors kids to get educated. That's not in the constitution but I'm good with it. Its living in a civilized society with rules that are not in the constitution.
Quote: Beethoven9th
And why do liberals exempt PRIVATE residences from being available to the public, but not PRIVATE businesses? Do they somehow think that it's OK to be a racist in your PRIVATE residence, but not in your PRIVATE business?.
Yes
Quote: Beethoven9th
For that matter, what about scholarships exclusively for black students? I don't have a problem with this at all, but by your logic, it's racist and should be open to the general public, not just black kids..
I have a bit of a problem with that. I would rather the scholarship go to the poor regardless of race.
Quote: MoosetonI couldn't help but be reminded of this case.
Photographer court ordered to shoot gay wedding
If the Supreme Court rules that Christian photographers MUST do gay weddings, then it will be further evidence that the US is falling apart.
