Conservative or Libertarian?

[Accountable]

And you vision of liberty is BS. Glean? Thought police? Ok, how about a forum that one of the rules state : No blacks allowed. As a white guy, no problem, yes? How about if you are fired at a retail job because a woman accuses you (a man) of something inappropriate, and the boss, a female, without talking to, fires you, this smacks of discrimination. I'm sure as the victim, you'd be fine with it as it's the price of liberty, right?

Obviously we don't agree. The conversation is no longer productive. (Was it ever?) I don't see myself EVER voting for a hard core libertarian although someone like Ron Paul seems to have more scruples than the entire Republican Party. If I was to bet, for the first time in your life regarding you liberty view, you'd be in the "minority".

Yes, don't vote for anyone with scruples because you might have to face your own prejudices.

 

[Minor Axis]

Yes, don't vote for anyone with scruples because you might have to face your own prejudices.

Unfortunately scruples are not the only criteria for who I want making decisions for me at the Federal level. That said I still would have to pick from the available pool or just not vote. I've always voted, so there actually could be a circumstance where I would vote for Paul. And I notice you did not address my examples. I realize it's hard to defend such positions.

 

[Accountable]

Unfortunately scruples are not the only criteria for who I want making decisions for me at the Federal level. That said I still would have to pick from the available pool or just not vote. I've always voted, so there actually could be a circumstance where I would vote for Paul. And I notice you did not address my examples. I realize it's hard to defend such positions.

You seem to think that if the government doesn't do it then it doesn't get done. Is that right?
Maybe if the government doesn't acknowledge it then it never happened? But that's for another thread.

I live in a "employment at will" state. An employer can fire someone without cause, so I'm sure the scenario you described has happened.

 

[Minor Axis]

I live in a "employment at will" state. An employer can fire someone without cause, so I'm sure the scenario you described has happened.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what your talking about. No one can put a notice on their forum saying "no blacks allowed" without fear of prosecution. And "At will" does not exempt an employer from the Federal requirements not to discriminate based on gender, race, or religion. Research it. I know from personal experience.

 

[Accountable]

I'm sorry, but you don't know what your talking about. No one can put a notice on their forum saying "no blacks allowed" without fear of prosecution. And "At will" does not exempt an employer from the Federal requirements not to discriminate based on gender, race, or religion. Research it. I know from personal experience.

I don't recall your example of a sign, sorry. I wasn't addressing that.

The federal gov't doesn't monitor businesses that closely. The only way someone would find out about such a firing would be if the employee sues. You can bet not that many even bother, so my statement stands.

eta: so who did you fire?

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't recall your example of a sign, sorry. I wasn't addressing that.

The federal gov't doesn't monitor businesses that closely. The only way someone would find out about such a firing would be if the employee sues. You can bet not that many even bother, so my statement stands.

eta: so who did you fire?

Your statement does not stand. Depending on the situation, you don't have to sue, just contact corporate HR department.

When my son was in high school he had a part time job at the mall. Walking into work one day, he was informed he was fired, because a female employee told the boss he had said something inappropriate. The female boss did not even bother to get my son's side. While it may seem that "at will" allows the boss to fire an employee for no reason, on the basis of sex discrimination there is legal traction. While checking out Federal guidelines on discrimination, I called their corporate HR department and they were very interested in making this right. However, my son decided he would be returning to a hostile environment and elected to get hired somewhere else. After all it was just a part time job. But if it was a full time job and my son was depending on this job, it might have been a different story.

I see the gears turning in your head. It's the liberty of the boss to fire whomever they want for what ever reason they want. (Except for cases of gender, racial, religious discrimination.) And you probably think discrimination does not matter. Well if you are looking for a fair and just environment then there are big problems with bosses holding their employees hostage with the threat of termination. Even though you will argue that attitude is not sustainable in the long run, just like you think prejudice is not sustainable, history shows the contrary. You push a position where those in power can consolidate power based on their prejudices. Of course, I disagree.

 

[Alien Allen]

if you are a good employee no sane boss would fire you just because he feels like it.

And if he is that kind of person that company is not one you would want to work for.

 

[Johnfromokc]

if you are a good employee no sane boss would fire you just because he feels like it.

And if he is that kind of person that company is not one you would want to work for.

Yeah, because everyone knows companies and their management always do what is right by their people - besides, even if they don't, anyone can always find a better job - even in this economy.

 

[Accountable]

Your statement does not stand. Depending on the situation, you don't have to sue, just contact corporate HR department.

When my son was in high school he had a part time job at the mall. Walking into work one day, he was informed he was fired, because a female employee told the boss he had said something inappropriate. The female boss did not even bother to get my son's side. While it may seem that "at will" allows the boss to fire an employee for no reason, on the basis of sex discrimination there is legal traction. While checking out Federal guidelines on discrimination, I called their corporate HR department and they were very interested in making this right. However, my son decided he would be returning to a hostile environment and elected to get hired somewhere else. After all it was just a part time job. But if it was a full time job and my son was depending on this job, it might have been a different story.

I see the gears turning in your head. It's the liberty of the boss to fire whomever they want for what ever reason they want. (Except for cases of gender, racial, religious discrimination.) And you probably think discrimination does not matter. Well if you are looking for a fair and just environment then there are big problems with bosses holding their employees hostage with the threat of termination. Even though you will argue that attitude is not sustainable in the long run, just like you think prejudice is not sustainable, history shows the contrary. You push a position where those in power can consolidate power based on their prejudices. Of course, I disagree.

:clap Excellent demonstration of just how tightly closed your mind is. Not only have you decided on your own opinions, you've already decided what mine are as well, and you have pre-judged based on that.

That's why it's pointless to tell you anything at all. You only hear what the little voices in your head (your own little voices) tell you, regardless of the words on the screen.

 

[Johnfromokc]

That's why it's pointless to tell you anything at all. You only hear what the little voices in your head (your own little voices) tell you, regardless of the words on the screen.

Holy shit! Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that? :24::24::24::24::24:

 

[Minor Axis]

:clap Excellent demonstration of just how tightly closed your mind is. Not only have you decided on your own opinions, you've already decided what mine are as well, and you have pre-judged based on that.

That's why it's pointless to tell you anything at all. You only hear what the little voices in your head (your own little voices) tell you, regardless of the words on the screen.

You know something, you are the pot calling the kettle black and you can do it with a straight face. My statement is merely my guess at how you'll respond of which I noticed you did not bother to respond. And little voices in my head? I would have said (before now) that insinuation and sarcasm that I'm mentally ill seems to be below you.

 

[Accountable]

You know something, you are the pot calling the kettle black and you can do it with a straight face. My statement is merely my guess at how you'll respond of which I noticed you did not bother to respond. And little voices in my head? I would have said (before now) that insinuation and sarcasm that I'm mentally ill seems to be below you.

You're drawing conclusions with no relationship at all to what I've written. Your evidence is definitely not coming from my posts, so it has to be coming from your own head. I apologize about the voices jab. I didn't mean to imply you are any less sane than I, but that's a pretty low bar.

 

[Minor Axis]

You're drawing conclusions with no relationship at all to what I've written. Your evidence is definitely not coming from my posts, so it has to be coming from your own head. I apologize about the voices jab. I didn't mean to imply you are any less sane than I, but that's a pretty low bar.

But you have said how you feel about personal liberty trumping civil rights. Apology accepted.

 

[Alien Allen]

Glad you apologized Minor

No way was that a knock on your being insane.

You just have views that are not compatible with reality

 

[Accountable]

But you have said how you feel about personal liberty trumping civil rights. Apology accepted.

I don't get how anybody can stretch one person entering another person's private property without permission into a right. At best it's an undeserved privilege, but realistically it's just trespassing.
What's even more indefensible is claiming that one person making decisions about his personal property as a violation of another person's "civil rights". Sure, if someone bought all the land surrounding your land then refused to give you passage in or out, but discriminating about clientele falls miles short of that standard.

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't get how anybody can stretch one person entering another person's private property without permission into a right. At best it's an undeserved privilege, but realistically it's just trespassing.
What's even more indefensible is claiming that one person making decisions about his personal property as a violation of another person's "civil rights". Sure, if someone bought all the land surrounding your land then refused to give you passage in or out, but discriminating about clientele falls miles short of that standard.

You just don't see it. Your house, your property is yours. Once you open it up as a business, then you can't discriminate for reasons that have been repeated over and over. WHY? Because discrimination is bad for society. I get it, you disagree, but you are wrong. It is a "me" vs a "we" problem. For a hermit, "me" is just fine... Functioning in a society requires acknowledgment of "we" and some basic level of mutual respect.

 

[Accountable]

You just don't see it. Your house, your property is yours. Once you open it up as a business, then you can't discriminate for reasons that have been repeated over and over. WHY? Because discrimination is bad for society. I get it, you disagree, but you are wrong. It is a "me" vs a "we" problem. For a hermit, "me" is just fine... Functioning in a society requires acknowledgment of "we" and some basic level of mutual respect.

I get it. You don't think that being able to shop where you're not welcome is more important than liberty. I disagree. I also disagree that usurping a basic right of property ownership even remotely resembles what you so quaintly label "mutual respect."

It's sad that you have such a dim view of humanity, that you are apparently in the extreme minority, being able to respect others without being forced to at the point of government guns.

 

[Minor Axis]

I get it. You don't think that being able to shop where you're not welcome is more important than liberty. I disagree. I also disagree that usurping a basic right of property ownership even remotely resembles what you so quaintly label "mutual respect."

It's sad that you have such a dim view of humanity, that you are apparently in the extreme minority, being able to respect others without being forced to at the point of government guns.

Look in the mirror. Yours is the minority view and I'm glad of it.

 

[Accountable]

Look in the mirror. Yours is the minority view and I'm glad of it.

I don't mean that your view is in the minority. I mean that you think you yourself are in the minority - that most people are small, petty, cruel, and selfish. I think that most people are more like you and I are - appreciative of what we have and willing to help those in need.

 

[Minor Axis]

I don't mean that your view is in the minority. I mean that you think you yourself are in the minority - that most people are small, petty, cruel, and selfish. I think that most people are more like you and I are - appreciative of what we have and willing to help those in need.

Sorry I did not get your response. I don't know how willing people are to help those in need. The state of Minnesota uses tax funds to insure children have medical and can eat. I don't think this would be accomplished with just donations, not enough to achieve what a State sponsored program has and continues to achieve. And yes I believe a hefty portion of those people don't like paying taxes for this purpose.