Republican Judgement

[Alien Allen]

Both parties practice crass politics

As to your example about a restaurant I think a PRIVATE business has every right to ban ANYBODY they choose.

You make it as though one has no alternative. Where as that just opens up an opportunity for another restaurant to serve those customers. It is piss poor business but they should have the right to keep out anybody they choose.

How about a restaurant that wants to allow smoking? Do you think they should have the right to allow it despite state laws? I imagine you will say they have no right and give all the normal reasons that employees and other patrons would be forced to put up with the smoke. Where I would see it is a free market and the patrons and the workers did not have to choose to eat there or work there.

As to abortion I am personally against it. I would not recommend it for anybody but my point is that it is none of my business. And I would not consider it an across the board personal failure. Each instance is different. There is no excuse one could say but that is for those living in a perfect world. I would never condemn somebody for opting for an abortion though as I have seen what that type of stigma can do up close and personal in two instances. Not my family but those I know closely.

 

[Minor Axis]

Does Money Corrupt Elections?

I was listening to Chris Hayes on MSNBC this morning and his argument is this.

Even with a $2500 contribution limit on contributions, the candidate who can tap the most $2500 contributions is going to have a decided advantage during the race. And who most likely will have and be able to easily develop a network of people who are able to contribute the capped amount? Most likely people with money. Who most likely will get elected? People with money. What kind of policies will they pass? Most likely policies that benefit people with money, their perceived constituency. Look at the wealth of those who currently hold office in the Senate and House...

I would counter that there could be someone with money who sees the social benefit of a strong middle class and might support laws that cost people with money some of their money in benefit of society overall.

However based on the current position of the Republican Party, don't count on this from any Republican candidate for any high level position in government. Republicana are solidly for the 1% and the rest of us are expendable to ensure those who deserve the good life get it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Both parties practice crass politics

1) As to your example about a restaurant I think a PRIVATE business has every right to ban ANYBODY they choose.

You make it as though one has no alternative. Where as that just opens up an opportunity for another restaurant to serve those customers. It is piss poor business but they should have the right to keep out anybody they choose.

2)How about a restaurant that wants to allow smoking? Do you think they should have the right to allow it despite state laws? I imagine you will say they have no right and give all the normal reasons that employees and other patrons would be forced to put up with the smoke. Where I would see it is a free market and the patrons and the workers did not have to choose to eat there or work there.

As to abortion I am personally against it. I would not recommend it for anybody but my point is that it is none of my business. And I would not consider it an across the board personal failure. Each instance is different. There is no excuse one could say but that is for those living in a perfect world. I would never condemn somebody for opting for an abortion though as I have seen what that type of stigma can do up close and personal in two instances. Not my family but those I know closely.

1)I disagree. History has shown clearly that discrimination reduces certain groups to second class citizens. Your liberty should not allow you to do this. I'm not speaking of a private club, but a restaurant open to "the public". Even private clubs must honor established standards, although I don't have a problem with a "mens" or "womens" club. I would have a problem with a "white mans" club.

2) This is a clear example where activities by a groups (smokers) adversely effect another group of people (non-smokers) and society in general as their high percentages of illness undermine insurance held by the overall group of society. There is no rule against smoking. Kill yourself if you want to, just don't make others sick and don't expect us to pay for you when you get cancer. This is one case where making it expensive to smoke through taxes, actually helps the drug addict. Maybe they will have incentive to second guess their self-destructive nature? When you live in a society, your liberty does not trump everything and everyone else. When a group's activities have an adverse effect on society, some of their liberties must be reduces for the overall good. it's the same reason why a business can't dump toxic waste in the river. It effects all of us and ruins our home (The Earth). Most of us don't shit in our kitchen for good reason...

 

[Alien Allen]

Does Money Corrupt Elections?

I was listening to Chris Hayes on MSNBC this morning and his argument is this.

Even with a $2500 contribution limit on contributions, the candidate who can tap the most $2500 contributions is going to have a decided advantage during the race. And who most likely will have and be able to easily develop a network of people who are able to contribute the capped amount? Most likely people with money. Who most likely will get elected? People with money. What kind of policies will they pass? Most likely policies that benefit people with money, their perceived constituency. Look at the wealth of those who currently hold office in the Senate and House...

I would counter that there could be someone with money who sees the social benefit of a strong middle class and might support laws that cost people with money some of their money in benefit of society overall.

However based on the current position of the Republican Party, don't count on this from any Republican candidate for any high level position in government. Republicana are solidly for the 1% and the rest of us are expendable to ensure those who deserve the good life get it.

Give me a break. Once again it is all about the right. You are seriously delusional if you think Democrats want to reform the system. Both parties thrive on the rules.

The only answer is to have publicly funded elections. Even then people are so damn fickle that they will go on the latest whims. It is hilarious as in sickening how people vote in new representatives that had specific ideas and then when those ideas are enacted the same people that voted for the representative start whining when it affects them. All the reforms are going to have some impact on all of us. Nobody should be exempt if we are to ever turn things around.

 

[Accountable]

1)I disagree. History has shown clearly that discrimination reduces certain groups to second class citizens.

That's systemic discrimination, and you are right. The government should never be allowed to discriminate, ever. The government must serve all of its citizens equally.

Private business practices are not systemic.

 

[Minor Axis]

You did not reply to post #803. Too tough to defend?

However based on the current position of the Republican Party, don't count on this from any Republican candidate for any high level position in government. Republicana are solidly for the 1% and the rest of us are expendable to ensure those who deserve the good life get it.

Give me a break. Once again it is all about the right. You are seriously delusional if you think Democrats want to reform the system. Both parties thrive on the rules.

I'd counter you are the one who is delusional. The most humorous thing is when Republican's cry CLASS WARFARE when there is talk of taxing the rich while they are completely blind to the class warfare against the Middle Class that has been going on for 30 years. The most discouraging thing about this situation is we as a society have to put up with these ass holes because of the idiots who vote for them.

The only answer is to have publicly funded elections. Even then people are so damn fickle that they will go on the latest whims. It is hilarious as in sickening how people vote in new representatives that had specific ideas and then when those ideas are enacted the same people that voted for the representative start whining when it affects them. All the reforms are going to have some impact on all of us. Nobody should be exempt if we are to ever turn things around.

I agree! However, keep in mind that corporate/national policies have all ready impacted a large percentage of the population. The working class has all ready been screwed. I'd counter that those with money should shoulder the majority of the burden.

 

[Alien Allen]

What in 803 did you want me to respond to ?

Are you really trying to use say that having a smoking restaurant is akin to making non smokers 2nd class citizens? If so I am not buying it and that goes into dangerous territory.

Your position on smoking ignores the fact that it is a private business and people that hire on and eat there knowingly consent to the environment. It is not a govt office or a place one has to go to.

Using your argument if I am dressed in a tee shirt and shorts then the swankiest restaurant in town that requires ties should be forced to let me in to eat.

Liberty is not always pretty

 

[Stone]

You might be surprised what we do agree on

Legalize MJ?...............................

How could I ever have missed that

 

[Alien Allen]

How could I ever have missed that

:thumbup

 

[Minor Axis]

What in 803 did you want me to respond to ?

Are you really trying to use say that having a smoking restaurant is akin to making non smokers 2nd class citizens? If so I am not buying it and that goes into dangerous territory.

Your position on smoking ignores the fact that it is a private business and people that hire on and eat there knowingly consent to the environment. It is not a govt office or a place one has to go to.

You are saying that the smoker has the right to pollute what in essence is a public space, if the restaurant is open to the public.

Using your argument if I am dressed in a tee shirt and shorts then the swankiest restaurant in town that requires ties should be forced to let me in to eat.

Liberty is not always pretty

You are smarter than this. Your tee shirt and shorts don't adversely effect people's health.

 

[Alien Allen]

You are saying that the smoker has the right to pollute what in essence is a public space, if the restaurant is open to the public.



You are smarter than this. Your tee shirt and shorts don't adversely effect people's health.

You keep thinking it is a public space

It is a private space. The owner has ownership to the property and what goes on inside unless that activity is illegal. Are there any other examples where a legal activity is treated as illegal like this??

It is no different than your home except you are selling something.

Everything that transpires is voluntary.

There is no coercion and nothing mandatory about a person working or eating there.

I will try another example. Let say I want to open up a small store that sells a lot of things you like or want to eat. But it also sells peanuts and you have a major allergy to peanuts. I am supposed to quit selling peanuts because of your allergy?? Or if I want a job there am I supposed to be able to force you to quit selling peanuts?

You keep wanting to lump everything together. As Accountable said if it was a public building there is no question a smoking law makes sense. On a side note how the hell can Casinos be exempt?

 

[Minor Axis]

Ok, based on your Libertarian blinders it's really no surprise we do not agree on this. :horse

You keep thinking it is a public space

It is a private space. The owner has ownership to the property and what goes on inside unless that activity is illegal. Are there any other examples where a legal activity is treated as illegal like this??

It is no different than your home except you are selling something.

Everything that transpires is voluntary.

There is no coercion and nothing mandatory about a person working or eating there.

I will try another example. Let say I want to open up a small store that sells a lot of things you like or want to eat. But it also sells peanuts and you have a major allergy to peanuts. I am supposed to quit selling peanuts because of your allergy?? Or if I want a job there am I supposed to be able to force you to quit selling peanuts?

You keep wanting to lump everything together. As Accountable said if it was a public building there is no question a smoking law makes sense. On a side note how the hell can Casinos be exempt?

*The restaurant is open to the public. It is not a private club.
*Your home is not usually open to the public.
*In most cases smoking in Casinos has been a conscious decision by the local municipality to choose revenue over people's health. An understandable but bad decisions.
*What is your position regarding smoking on airliners?

There are thousands of laws on the books that prevent people from doing things that harm society/environment. It is the price you pay for living in a society. Why can't you throw toxic waste in the river? You ever heard of a house being condemned because it is full of trash, feces, and or chemicals? Why should the local authorities be allowed to do this (condemn a house)?

And it goes along with mandatory recycling. A city has a problem, it is running out of space for landfills, so it implements mandatory recycling. What is the difference between that and watching your taxes balloon because they have to start hauling the cities trash 200 miles? Would it be better if you just dumped your bags of trash along the highway? Your problem might be solved, but a majority of people would be disgusted and the city and it's citizens would still have to deal with it's trash problem.

 

[Alien Allen]

are you really trying to compare a restaurant and an airplane?

and your recycling example means nothing. That is a voluntary thing. Which I agree to do as it is good for the environment and it saves my city money.

and a restaurant is still private property. which there is no requirement for a person to enter for any reason. it is voluntary to work or eat there.

 

[Minor Axis]

are you really trying to compare a restaurant and an airplane?

Yes I am. Give me one reason why I should not? Are you even aware of the effect of second hand smoke on non-smokers? Liberty, my right to poison you, or better yet, just clear a big path for me and my liberty, cause it has priority over your liberty...

and your recycling example means nothing. That is a voluntary thing. Which I agree to do as it is good for the environment and it saves my city money.

It's not voluntary every where as I pointed out in previous posts.

and a restaurant is still private property. which there is no requirement for a person to enter for any reason. it is voluntary to work or eat there.

Unless some standard has happened I am not aware of your restaurant is open to the public. Ok, I'm done now arguing with you.

 

[Alien Allen]

let me try this one Minor

How about if an airline is smoking only.

Everybody that enters the plane as a passenger or a worker does so willingly

One hires on knowing that there is smoking allowed

And passengers are told smoking is allowed

Where does your view of liberty cross the line?

 

[The Man]

I have to agree with AA on this.
No one is forcing anyone to go to a cafe with smoking.
People can very well open up "no smoking" cafes....perhaps the whiners could do this..rather than whine
The choice should be up to the business owner as to his clients.
If the demand is there people will open them up..and not be forced by legislation
But whiners cause legislation to be evoked taking away further freedoms of others.
Granted people have the right to not have smoke in their environment....when someone blows smoke in their window they then have a legitimate complaint or perhaps fires up one while they are paying property taxes.
Other than that most activities could be considered "functions"..which is something one chooses to do
Dont want to smell nitro methane?..dont go to the drag races...Its the same thing.
Ban those now?
Not to mention you can lose your hearing after time....far more harmful than a cigarette being lit up.
But hey its voluntarily...don't like the atmosphere don't go.

 

[Accountable]

 

[Minor Axis]

let me try this one Minor

How about if an airline is smoking only.

That airline would fail in short order. All most all, if not all airlines have gone no-smoking. Hmm, why would they do such a silly thing?
Yours, The Mans, Accountables are minority "my liberty" trumps yours. You are too wrapped up into your liberty to see that functioning in a society means you are liberties may be somewhat retrained. And your liberty does not allow you the right to discriminate or pollute in a public establishment (even on private property) based on well established standards such as race, gender, religion and public health issues. And somehow you think the world would be so much better if this kind of discrimination was allowed to flourish and if people are allowed to poison themselves along with others. I recognize that discrimination is a different subject than smoking restrictions, but of the Libertarians in the group, it's all one big ball of twine. Now I am done. Don't bother presenting any more silly scenarios either.

 

[Accountable]

That airline would fail in short order.

Probably, and without legislation forcing the failure. That's the point.

 

[Alien Allen]

Probably, and without legislation forcing the failure. That's the point.

how something so simple just is incomprehensible for some eh