The Tea Party in Kentucky


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Tea Party candidate says he thinks individual business owners should be able to discriminate

WTF? Seriously? You would think they would be a little more cognizant of what their candidates are saying on the public stage, especially after their first major primary win. I guess it just goes to show that the best way to deal with an opponent is to just give them enough rope to hang themselves with. OTOH, it is Kentucky, so hell, it might just help him in the polls...

EDIT: Link may not work...I refreshed the page and was given a server error @ Yahoo.


The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.

Liberty's Edge

Businesses discriminate all the time.

There is, for example, a health club called "CURVES" that only allows women to join.

I believe the point he was making (perhaps poorly) was that if you believe that a "free society" means the freedom to associate with whomever you choose, then you have to take the good and bad consequences of that.

He also stated, unequivocably, that he believed racist/discriminatory behavior was morally wrong.

Liberty's Edge

jocundthejolly wrote:
The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.

Yeah, it's a great idea...if you want america to regress a couple decades. It's funny he mentions any federally funded projects. Most small business owners receive a lot of support from the gov't...if Paul's dream came true and they were allowed to discriminate, that would just put MORE beurocracy into place so they could identify which was eligible for funding and which wasn't.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

jocundthejolly wrote:
The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building.

And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply

So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do
So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you

Something about this whole issue seems tailor made for a song... :)

Liberty's Edge

Cuchulainn wrote:

Businesses discriminate all the time.

There is, for example, a health club called "CURVES" that only allows women to join.

I believe the point he was making (perhaps poorly) was that if you believe that a "free society" means the freedom to associate with whomever you choose, then you have to take the good and bad consequences of that.

He also stated, unequivocably, that he believed racist/discriminatory behavior was morally wrong.

IIRC, curves business plan is centered around women. Their trainers are speciallized for women, the classes they offer are designed for women, etc. Requiring them to admit men would require a significant change in their business practices and staffing. Can you say the same for black vs. white vs. brown vs. etc.? Totally different argument.

BLUF: Saying you support a business owner's right to discriminate, but that you are against racism & discrimination is about as oxymoronic as you can get.


The question was asked specifically about "not serving black people". The wording of the question helps with the sensationalism of the response.

If they had asked do you feel private business owners have the right to dictate who they serve, this would not be an issue. I think the reporter set up the canidate with that question knowing the answer to the broad stance.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Cuchulainn wrote:

Businesses discriminate all the time.

There is, for example, a health club called "CURVES" that only allows women to join.

IIRC, curves business plan is centered around women. Their trainers are speciallized for women, the classes they offer are designed for women, etc. Requiring them to admit men would require a significant change in their business practices and staffing. Can you say the same for black vs. white vs. brown vs. etc.? Totally different argument.

In the UK they could be prosecuted under equal rights laws..unless they registered as a private club and even there the legislation is..murky

Liberty's Edge

TheChozyn wrote:

The question was asked specifically about "not serving black people". The wording of the question helps with the sensationalism of the response.

If they had asked do you feel private business owners have the right to dictate who they serve, this would not be an issue. I think the reporter set up the canidate with that question knowing the answer to the broad stance.

The fact of the matter is, often times, it's going to be blacks that would get refused service (they can't tell who's gay by looking at them, after all)...the question was fair because, given historical context in our country, that's what was occuring and likely would occur if he got his way.

Liberty's Edge

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

[IIRC, curves business plan is centered around women. Their trainers are speciallized for women, the classes they offer are designed for women, etc. Requiring them to admit men would require a significant change in their business practices and staffing. Can you say the same for black vs. white vs. brown vs. etc.? Totally different argument.

BLUF: Saying you support a business owner's right to discriminate, but that you are against racism & discrimination is about as oxymoronic as you can get.

Why should someone be allowed to open a business that discrimates against people based on their physiology? What's the justification, aside from, "well that's different."

re: BLUF: I hope you apply that same sentiment to Prsident Obama when he says that he is against Gay Marriage, but that it should be legal, or when he says he is against abortion, but it should be legal. There should be no double standards.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
jocundthejolly wrote:
The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.
Yeah, it's a great idea...if you want america to regress a couple decades. It's funny he mentions any federally funded projects. Most small business owners receive a lot of support from the gov't...if Paul's dream came true and they were allowed to discriminate, that would just put MORE beurocracy into place so they could identify which was eligible for funding and which wasn't.

It's already there Xpltv. I realise you and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum but what he's saying isn't bad.

Think about all the discrimination that goes on today anyway.
I look to the NAACP or the united Negro college fund or any of the "traditional" black colleges as "racist" organizations but nobody else seems to have a problem with them. Curves or the "for women only" are sexist and discriminatory but because it's for a minority it's ok. I wonder how long a gym called STUDS or for males only would last before some femanist with a bee up her ass would take it to court. The gentelmens clubs of the past are prime examples of this. They were just a gathering place for men but one norma ray wanna be after another thought it was her god given duty to force them into "modern" ways.

IMO! it's amazing to me that when your tearing down anything white or male its ok but if you try to apply the rules evenly its discrimination or racist or any other buzz word that gets attention and promotes victimization of the cause.

Liberty's Edge

Cuchulainn wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:

[IIRC, curves business plan is centered around women. Their trainers are speciallized for women, the classes they offer are designed for women, etc. Requiring them to admit men would require a significant change in their business practices and staffing. Can you say the same for black vs. white vs. brown vs. etc.? Totally different argument.

BLUF: Saying you support a business owner's right to discriminate, but that you are against racism & discrimination is about as oxymoronic as you can get.

Why should someone be allowed to open a business that discrimates against people based on their physiology? What's the justification, aside from, "well that's different."

re: BLUF: I hope you apply that same sentiment to Prsident Obama when he says that he is against Gay Marriage, but that it should be legal, or when he says he is against abortion, but it should be legal. There should be no double standards.

Men and women's physiology differences necessitate different exercise requirements. Same with whites and bl...oh wait nevermind.

re: re: BLUF: There is a difference. When you open a business, it is essentially becoming a "public" place. Discriminating against, say, blacks would cause you to potentially have an effect on somewhere around 15% of 300 million people. The two examples you provided affect between 1 and 2 people. That's it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steven Tindall wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
jocundthejolly wrote:
The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.
Yeah, it's a great idea...if you want america to regress a couple decades. It's funny he mentions any federally funded projects. Most small business owners receive a lot of support from the gov't...if Paul's dream came true and they were allowed to discriminate, that would just put MORE beurocracy into place so they could identify which was eligible for funding and which wasn't.

It's already there Xpltv. I realise you and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum but what he's saying isn't bad.

Think about all the discrimination that goes on today anyway.
I look to the NAACP or the united Negro college fund or any of the "traditional" black colleges as "racist" organizations but nobody else seems to have a problem with them. Curves or the "for women only" are sexist and discriminatory but because it's for a minority it's ok. I wonder how long a gym called STUDS or for males only would last before some femanist with a bee up her ass would take it to court. The gentelmens clubs of the past are prime examples of this. They were just a gathering place for men but one norma ray wanna be after another thought it was her god given duty to force them into "modern" ways.

IMO! it's amazing to me that when your tearing down anything white or male its ok but if you try to apply the rules evenly its discrimination or racist or any other buzz word that gets attention and promotes victimization of the cause.

I think that it is mostly because usually it is the minorities that get the short end of the stick. When you are in the majority, you already get to dictate the ways of the world (in your country at least) for the most part. White men (and I am one to be honest) already have the rights laid out for them, and rarely have the uphill struggles that many minorities have. We are already "in the club" so to speak; no glass ceiling for us.

It used to bother me that there was a "BET" network, but no "WET" network. Then I realized how unfair I was being. I don't have to deal with a lot of the stigmas that minorities get.

On the other hand, I am a part of the new "minority": the obese. And there are few, if any, laws protecting us fat folks from discrimination. Heck, I just wish I could go to the supermarket and not have to hear every other kid say "Mom, look how big that man is." At least 50% of the parents try to shush their kids when they do that. The other 50% don't say anything. It is depressing.

Liberty's Edge

Steven Tindall wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
jocundthejolly wrote:
The argument is that you (should) have the right to control access to your land or your building. That is all. It's really not a crazy argument. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe in applying this consistently. For example, if you are a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority and you want to hang up a sign that says,"White people not welcome," I think that is your choice. I think it is repulsive and stupid, but it is your choice.
Yeah, it's a great idea...if you want america to regress a couple decades. It's funny he mentions any federally funded projects. Most small business owners receive a lot of support from the gov't...if Paul's dream came true and they were allowed to discriminate, that would just put MORE beurocracy into place so they could identify which was eligible for funding and which wasn't.

It's already there Xpltv. I realise you and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum but what he's saying isn't bad.

Think about all the discrimination that goes on today anyway.
I look to the NAACP or the united Negro college fund or any of the "traditional" black colleges as "racist" organizations but nobody else seems to have a problem with them. Curves or the "for women only" are sexist and discriminatory but because it's for a minority it's ok. I wonder how long a gym called STUDS or for males only would last before some femanist with a bee up her ass would take it to court. The gentelmens clubs of the past are prime examples of this. They were just a gathering place for men but one norma ray wanna be after another thought it was her god given duty to force them into "modern" ways.

IMO! it's amazing to me that when your tearing down anything white or male its ok but if you try to apply the rules evenly its discrimination or racist or any other buzz word that gets attention and promotes victimization of the cause.

Maybe there is a double standard, but I still feel that there is a difference between these non-profs and a business that sits on a public street. Oh and when you say "traditional" black colleges, I assume you are referring to Spellman and Moorhouse (sp?)...which are no longer exclusively black.

re UNCF: What's funny is, here in about 16 years, I guess I'll see first hand whether it's about black lineage or skin color. My wife is 1/2 black and our son is 1/4 black. He's pretty damn white. He's got a little bit of a tan, but straight, medium-brown hair and gray-blue eyes. I'm curious as to whether he will be eligible for black scholarships and assistance from the UNCF when he starts looking for college.


I was going to respond to you Steven, but Xplv beat me to the punch on that. In terms of the UNCF, those things are damn hard to get even if you ARE black. My wife's been applying for them for YEARS and never got the nod. Also, there are a lot of mixed race individuals who do apply for the UNCF stuff and recieve it- you actually might apply yourself depending on how far back black people run in your family.

Also, the valedictorian from one of the HSU's most recently was white. And I think another had a white salutorian(or whatever the 2nd place one is for valedictorian).

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:

I was going to respond to you Steven, but Xplv beat me to the punch on that. In terms of the UNCF, those things are damn hard to get even if you ARE black. My wife's been applying for them for YEARS and never got the nod. Also, there are a lot of mixed race individuals who do apply for the UNCF stuff and recieve it- you actually might apply yourself depending on how far back black people run in your family.

Also, the valedictorian from one of the HSU's most recently was white. And I think another had a white salutorian(or whatever the 2nd place one is for valedictorian).

LOL unless they consider me black by marriage, there's no way I'm qualifying for anyhing from the UNCF.

I'm not familiar w/ the HSU...care to explain?


OK I can admit that maybe times have changed in those instances. I appreciate both Freehold and Xpltv for pointing it out to me( no snark,no sarcasm) as far as family history we are as white as an oak tree. I will freely admit I come from a messed up family so no comment needed.

My question if it's not a thread jack is do you still see a need for affirmtive action or has it's time passed?


The question is would this be as big of an issue if the reporter had used another term rather than black?

I don't think it would be at all.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

I was going to respond to you Steven, but Xplv beat me to the punch on that. In terms of the UNCF, those things are damn hard to get even if you ARE black. My wife's been applying for them for YEARS and never got the nod. Also, there are a lot of mixed race individuals who do apply for the UNCF stuff and recieve it- you actually might apply yourself depending on how far back black people run in your family.

Also, the valedictorian from one of the HSU's most recently was white. And I think another had a white salutorian(or whatever the 2nd place one is for valedictorian).

LOL unless they consider me black by marriage, there's no way I'm qualifying for anyhing from the UNCF.

I'm not familiar w/ the HSU...care to explain?

Nope according to my friend melissa she didn't marry a white guy he was already a "blue eyed soul brother". I still don't think taht qualifies you for any scholorships or nfunding though:)

Liberty's Edge

Steven Tindall wrote:

OK I can admit that maybe times have changed in those instances. I appreciate both Freehold and Xpltv for pointing it out to me( no snark,no sarcasm) as far as family history we are as white as an oak tree. I will freely admit I come from a messed up family so no comment needed.

My question if it's not a thread jack is do you still see a need for affirmtive action or has it's time passed?

Affirmative action should ONLY be used in the case of equally qualified individuals seeking the same position (if at all). It's not something that I ever really thought about, but it happened to come up in a convo w/ my wife and she said that black people dislike it as much as white people do (but for different reasons). I can definitely see how it could be taken as condescending by the group "benefiting" from it.


This reminds me of the whole dating service heterosexual vs. homosexual thing that happened a couple of years ago. A dating service did not give the option of same-sex choices only opposite-sex choices. Some lawsuits were threatened trying to force the service to provide for individuals that their was built around. They were being pressured to "require a significant change in their business practices and staffing."

Should a private company be forced to provide services that they don't wish to?


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

I was going to respond to you Steven, but Xplv beat me to the punch on that. In terms of the UNCF, those things are damn hard to get even if you ARE black. My wife's been applying for them for YEARS and never got the nod. Also, there are a lot of mixed race individuals who do apply for the UNCF stuff and recieve it- you actually might apply yourself depending on how far back black people run in your family.

Also, the valedictorian from one of the HSU's most recently was white. And I think another had a white salutorian(or whatever the 2nd place one is for valedictorian).

LOL unless they consider me black by marriage, there's no way I'm qualifying for anyhing from the UNCF.

I'm not familiar w/ the HSU...care to explain?

Haha..I mean HBU's(historically black universities), not HSUs...Not even sure what one of those are. I do think it's a popular asian last name, although I'm not sure of the region.


TheChozyn wrote:

The question is would this be as big of an issue if the reporter had used another term rather than black?

I don't think it would be at all.

No, it wouldn't be. But the Tea Party guy blundered into a trap. Now he's going to look like some kind of racist reprobate even if he isn't. Part his fault, part the reporter's fault.

Dark Archive

All I can say is that the apple didn't fall from the tree. Rand Paul's father during the presidential campaign refused to return donations received from white supremest groups and was considered a threat to draw voters away from the National Socialist Movement Party, a Neo-Nazi political party. Sounds like Rand is carrying on the family tradition.


Sigh....is nothing safe from politics any more?

I bought some new dice. My PBP game is going well. I get to play D&D tomorrow in my friend's Ptolus campaign.


farewell2kings wrote:

Sigh....is nothing safe from politics any more?

I bought some new dice. My PBP game is going well. I get to play D&D tomorrow in my friend's Ptolus campaign.

Hey....you aren't in NY by any chance are you? Because tomorrow is MY Ptolus game, and that is a game so rare that there is a possiblity we could both be in it.

[EDIT] Waitaminute, this IS a political thread!!


farewell2kings wrote:

Sigh....is nothing safe from politics any more?

I bought some new dice. My PBP game is going well. I get to play D&D tomorrow in my friend's Ptolus campaign.

Will you have a diverse, racially-balanced group of players? What are the demographics of Ptolus, anyway? when was the last time you had a halfling over to your house?

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
pres man wrote:

This reminds me of the whole dating service heterosexual vs. homosexual thing that happened a couple of years ago. A dating service did not give the option of same-sex choices only opposite-sex choices. Some lawsuits were threatened trying to force the service to provide for individuals that their was built around. They were being pressured to "require a significant change in their business practices and staffing."

Should a private company be forced to provide services that they don't wish to?

When it comes to legislation about descriminating to certain people, I find that it's almost un-necessary. Please note I said "almost".

For those of us who live in places with more open views, we don't see a need for it. For instance: If my local sandwhich shop barred Muslims, they'd go out of business because even white people (like myself) would find that unfair. I can still walk into a gay bar (even though I'm straight). If the owners barred me, some of my gay/bi friends would be insulted and that place would lose business. Losing money because of your discrimination means the business either changes or fails. Problem solved (with Capitalism!). Granted, I live in a large city with a large multi-cultural base.

When I lived in a small town, barring gays/muslims/catholics/Indians etc. could happen and the capitalistic element wouldn't be there, since these groups are small. It is getting better though. When one of the gay couples that ran a business in town were targeted with vandalism, the town rallied to pay for the damages and begged them to stay in business.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Modera wrote:

When it comes to legislation about descriminating to certain people, I find that it's almost un-necessary. Please note I said "almost".

For those of us who live in places with more open views, we don't see a need for it. For instance: If my local sandwhich shop barred Muslims, they'd go out of business because even white people (like myself) would find that unfair. I can still walk into a gay bar (even though I'm straight). If the owners barred me, some of my gay/bi friends would be insulted and that place would lose business. Losing money because of your discrimination means the business either changes or fails. Problem solved (with Capitalism!). Granted, I live in a large city with a large multi-cultural base.

When I lived in a small town, barring gays/muslims/catholics/Indians etc. could happen and the capitalistic element wouldn't be there, since these groups are small. It is getting better though. When one of the gay couples that ran a business in town were targeted with vandalism, the town rallied to pay for the damages and begged them to stay in business.

This,

When the smoking bans rolled through Ohio, I fought it even though I don't smoke. If I want to go to a smoke free establishment, I'll go find one. If a smoker wants to go to a bar and have a drink and a smoke, let them.

The argument of 'what about the waitresses' rang hollow. They choose to work there.

I lived in an apartment complex that banned alcohol (owners were Mormons). I enjoyed that I'd not have a drunken neighbor at 3 in the morning. Should they be allowed to discriminate against drinkers?

The Government being race neutral is one thing, forcing someone to accomidate someone else is wrong.


Bill Lumberg wrote:
Will you have a diverse, racially-balanced group of players?

I'm in several that are diverse to the point of hilarity. The only races that are not represented are Indians and full-blooded Native Americans.

Bill Lumberg wrote:
when was the last time you had a halfling over to your house?

Not that long ago actually...


Modera wrote:
pres man wrote:

This reminds me of the whole dating service heterosexual vs. homosexual thing that happened a couple of years ago. A dating service did not give the option of same-sex choices only opposite-sex choices. Some lawsuits were threatened trying to force the service to provide for individuals that their was built around. They were being pressured to "require a significant change in their business practices and staffing."

Should a private company be forced to provide services that they don't wish to?

When it comes to legislation about descriminating to certain people, I find that it's almost un-necessary. Please note I said "almost".

For those of us who live in places with more open views, we don't see a need for it. For instance: If my local sandwhich shop barred Muslims, they'd go out of business because even white people (like myself) would find that unfair. I can still walk into a gay bar (even though I'm straight). If the owners barred me, some of my gay/bi friends would be insulted and that place would lose business. Losing money because of your discrimination means the business either changes or fails. Problem solved (with Capitalism!). Granted, I live in a large city with a large multi-cultural base.

When I lived in a small town, barring gays/muslims/catholics/Indians etc. could happen and the capitalistic element wouldn't be there, since these groups are small. It is getting better though. When one of the gay couples that ran a business in town were targeted with vandalism, the town rallied to pay for the damages and begged them to stay in business.

I thought the commericials from a rival company with people talking about how they were "rejected" by the original company was a good marketing move. If the courts would stay out of it, things like this usually work themselves out ultimately.

Liberty's Edge

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

[Men and women's physiology differences necessitate different exercise requirements. Same with whites and bl...oh wait nevermind.

Oh, like how men lift weights and women...oh, wait never mind.

Or, like how men run on treadmills and women...uhhh
Well, men swim and women...errr
But, women do yoga and aerobics classes and men...well damn.

And of course, if someone is a certified physical fitness instructor and happens to be female, she couldn't possibly help a man train, depsite the fact that men have been training women for decades.

I guess you got me there, how foolish of me.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Modera wrote:

When it comes to legislation about descriminating to certain people, I find that it's almost un-necessary. Please note I said "almost".

For those of us who live in places with more open views, we don't see a need for it. For instance: If my local sandwhich shop barred Muslims, they'd go out of business because even white people (like myself) would find that unfair. I can still walk into a gay bar (even though I'm straight). If the owners barred me, some of my gay/bi friends would be insulted and that place would lose business. Losing money because of your discrimination means the business either changes or fails. Problem solved (with Capitalism!). Granted, I live in a large city with a large multi-cultural base.

When I lived in a small town, barring gays/muslims/catholics/Indians etc. could happen and the capitalistic element wouldn't be there, since these groups are small. It is getting better though. When one of the gay couples that ran a business in town were targeted with vandalism, the town rallied to pay for the damages and begged them to stay in business.

This,

When the smoking bans rolled through Ohio, I fought it even though I don't smoke. If I want to go to a smoke free establishment, I'll go find one. If a smoker wants to go to a bar and have a drink and a smoke, let them.

The argument of 'what about the waitresses' rang hollow. They choose to work there.

I lived in an apartment complex that banned alcohol (owners were Mormons). I enjoyed that I'd not have a drunken neighbor at 3 in the morning. Should they be allowed to discriminate against drinkers?

The Government being race neutral is one thing, forcing someone to accomidate someone else is wrong.

Comparing establishments which ban an activity (smoking, drinking) to establishments which ban people based on the color of their skin seems pretty f-ing stupid to me.


previoue poster wrote:

I lived in an apartment complex that banned alcohol (owners were Mormons). I enjoyed that I'd not have a drunken neighbor at 3 in the morning. Should they be allowed to discriminate against drinkers?

The Government being race neutral is one thing, forcing someone to accomidate someone else is wrong.

I lived in an apartment complex that banned blacks (owners were racist). I enjoyed that I'd not have a black neighbor at 3 in the morning. Should they be allowed to discriminate against blacks?

Should we wait for a economic solution for that?


Xabulba wrote:
Prince That Howls wrote:

I lived in an apartment complex that banned alcohol (owners were Mormons). I enjoyed that I'd not have a drunken neighbor at 3 in the morning. Should they be allowed to discriminate against drinkers?

The Government being race neutral is one thing, forcing someone to accomidate someone else is wrong.

I lived in an apartment complex that banned blacks (owners were racist). I enjoyed that I'd not have a black neighbor at 3 in the morning. Should they be allowed to discriminate against blacks?

Should we wait for a economic solution for that?

Hey, I didn't write that.


Sorry, fixed.

The Exchange

Steven Tindall wrote:

OK I can admit that maybe times have changed in those instances. I appreciate both Freehold and Xpltv for pointing it out to me( no snark,no sarcasm) as far as family history we are as white as an oak tree. I will freely admit I come from a messed up family so no comment needed.

My question if it's not a thread jack is do you still see a need for affirmative action or has it's time passed?

I think its need should be downplayed, that being said in some urban centers the difference between the underprivileged and those with a support structure are night and day. Most of the times this is very much in favor of those who have skin as light as mine. I think we should however change it that the criteria is not being a minority but being more in need. There are sections of our society that are underprivileged and skin color just doesn't matter. Of course I am all for pumping a lot of money into the educational system as well.

Edit We are 56th


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
WTF? Seriously? You would think they would be a little more cognizant of what their candidates are saying on the public stage, especially after their first major primary win. I guess it just goes to show that the best way to deal with an opponent is to just give them enough rope to hang themselves with. OTOH, it is Kentucky, so hell, it might just help him in the polls...

You were just discriminatory against the entire populace of Kentucky. Congrats. In fact, what does that say about your opinion of the rest of the South? I'm suspecting you're a bigot. I hope I'm wrong.

Rand Paul is a LIBERTARIAN (regardless of current party affiliation). If you know anything about Libertarians, they believe in true freedom - not the government regulated freedom that we're all subjected to.

Understand the position and you'll understand his answer, although it was political suicide to answer it in the way he did because 99% of the folks hearing the sound bite or reading the headline won't go beyond it.

Why he even appeared on Rachel Maddow's show is beyond me.

Would I have said it? No.

Do I see the philosophy behind it? Yes.

Do I agree with the vast uninformed interpretation of it? Hell No.

Do I agree that the Act should be repealed? Double Hell No.

As a Tennessean, I'm ashamed Al Gore's daddy fought and voted against the Civil Rights Act.

I'm no d@mn Demoncrat. You can bet your arse on that.

My how history is forgotten.


Tranquilis wrote:


You were just discriminatory against the entire populace of Kentucky. Congrats. In fact, what does that say about your opinion of the rest of the South? I'm suspecting you're a bigot. I hope I'm wrong.

Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.


I think the problem with Rand Paul is that he has committed a series of unforced errors that demonstrates he is not ready for scrutiny. He came out on numerous occasions(Kentucky newspaper, NPR and the Rachel Maddow Show) against the Civil Rights Law of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1993. Even if he thinks that less government is ideal, there is no movement in the country to repeal these laws because it would be political suicide. The Civil Rights Act is probably one of the greatest legislative victories in the history of the Congress and is rightly celebrated. No one(despite their actual feelings on race) and I mean no one in the Senate for the last deacde would be foolish enough to say to a reporter that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake and would have voted against it. This is settled law.

Currently, he is backtracking as fast as he can.

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Xabulba wrote:
previoue poster wrote:

I lived in an apartment complex that banned alcohol (owners were Mormons). I enjoyed that I'd not have a drunken neighbor at 3 in the morning. Should they be allowed to discriminate against drinkers?

The Government being race neutral is one thing, forcing someone to accomidate someone else is wrong.

I lived in an apartment complex that banned blacks (owners were racist). I enjoyed that I'd not have a black neighbor at 3 in the morning. Should they be allowed to discriminate against blacks?

Should we wait for a economic solution for that?

Like I said, it "almost" works. The problem occurs in areas that allow it to happen. In your statement, you enjoyed not having a black neighbour at 3 in the morning (I'm assuming you were using this to prove a point and are, in fact, not racist). Thus if there's enough people who support these places, they exist (like in my comment about the small town I lived in that hate various groups of people).

Do I think we should force change in these cases? Not really. By forcing that building to change, while it helps some black people live there, the owners (and the supporters) won't change their outlook. They may even grow to hate their new neighbours even more than before.

An alternative solution (albeit a Socialistic one: I'm sorry, I'm Canadian):

if the government gave out incentives to business' that followed easily understood moral guidelines (slight reduction in taxes, for instance), that may cause more change than forcing people to adhere to morals they don't agree with. They still have the choice and there's a positive reasoning to not have "racist" reasons.

Problem is this would be hard to prove and costly to investigate. Your landlord probably didn't have a sign up saying "No blacks allowed".

Granted it would be hard to define those morals and you'd even have trouble sticking to god-given rights (A person's sexuality would be a sore point, and perhaps ones job may be cause to discriminate).

For instance: I, for one, don't see anything wrong with drinking as long as it's done in moderation. A mormon may differ and want to be given the incentive based on banning alcohol in his building.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Prince That Howls wrote:
Comparing establishments which ban an activity (smoking, drinking) to establishments which ban people based on the color of their skin seems pretty f-ing stupid to me.

I'll leave out a discussion of how 'f-ing stupid' you are for another conversation.

The point is, people naturally gravitate towards organizations or businesses that don't offend their sensabilities. Part of the reason MLK's freedom marches worked was that it shined a spotlight on abhorent activity. I feel that if a private company wants to ban Mormons, or women, or men or something silly like that, they should be allowed to. If you disagree with it, you should be allowed to form your own group, stand on (public) land and protest it, take your business elsewhere, etc.

This isn't 1964. We don't have KKK members in the senate- oh, wait never mind.

To take our hosts, as an example. Paizo produces more 'mature' products than say WotC. Some people have expressed discomfort in the past about the tone of their products. They've voted with their wallets. Do we really need a government authority coming in and dictating Paizo make their content more G rated to not 'discriminate' againg folks who don't want slavery in their RPGs?

Or should the Government break up Curves because they discriminate and exclude men? Or Augusta for excluding women for that matter?

Edit: What I mean is it wasn't so much the impact of MLK's marches not going to Joe's segregated restaurant, it was Other people deciding to not go to Joe's restaurant because of the attention put on it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tranquilis wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
WTF? Seriously? You would think they would be a little more cognizant of what their candidates are saying on the public stage, especially after their first major primary win. I guess it just goes to show that the best way to deal with an opponent is to just give them enough rope to hang themselves with. OTOH, it is Kentucky, so hell, it might just help him in the polls...

You were just discriminatory against the entire populace of Kentucky. Congrats. In fact, what does that say about your opinion of the rest of the South? I'm suspecting you're a bigot. I hope I'm wrong.

Rand Paul is a LIBERTARIAN (regardless of current party affiliation). If you know anything about Libertarians, they believe in true freedom - not the government regulated freedom that we're all subjected to.

Understand the position and you'll understand his answer, although it was political suicide to answer it in the way he did because 99% of the folks hearing the sound bite or reading the headline won't go beyond it.

Why he even appeared on Rachel Maddow's show is beyond me.

Would I have said it? No.

Do I see the philosophy behind it? Yes.

Do I agree with the vast uninformed interpretation of it? Hell No.

Do I agree that the Act should be repealed? Double Hell No.

As a Tennessean, I'm ashamed Al Gore's daddy fought and voted against the Civil Rights Act.

I'm no d@mn Demoncrat. You can bet your arse on that.

My how history is forgotten.

Goodness.


Freehold DM wrote:
Bill Lumberg wrote:
Will you have a diverse, racially-balanced group of players?

I'm in several that are diverse to the point of hilarity. The only races that are not represented are Indians and full-blooded Native Americans.

Why not? What do you have against them? Damned, Archie Bunker wannabe you.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Garydee wrote:
Tranquilis wrote:


You were just discriminatory against the entire populace of Kentucky. Congrats. In fact, what does that say about your opinion of the rest of the South? I'm suspecting you're a bigot. I hope I'm wrong.

Tranquilis, one thing that I've learned on this board is that people who throw the word "bigotry" around the most are usually the worst perpetrators of it themselves.

Let's face it; most of us are bigoted in some way or another. When a person is subjected to discrimination, they tend to return in kind to the type of person that did it to them. It's human nature. I know lots of good people from Texas and Kentucky who are not racist or bigoted. I also know that Rick Perry is an a**hat and that the Conservatives that want to rewrite history into textbooks have a political agenda.

Let's not get too bogged down in geographical issues. There are turds in every state; take Joe Lieberman for instance.

Good to see you are hanging in there Gary. Stay frosty.


It's high time someone blew the whistle on all the silly prattle about revamping our language to suit the purposes of certain political fanatics. You know what I am talking about--those who accuse speakers of English of what they call racism. This awkward neologism, constructed by analogy with the well-established term sexism, does not sit well in the ears, if I may mix my metaphors. But let us grant that in our society there may be injustices here and there in the treatment of either race from time to time, and let us even grant these people their terms racism and racist. How valid, however, are the claims of the self-proclaimed "black libbers," or "negrists"--those who would radically change our language in order to "liberate" us poor dupes from its supposed racist bias?
Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the age-old usage of the noun white and words built from it, such as chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, middlewhite, Frenchwhite, forwhite, whitepower, whiteslaughter, oneupswhiteship, straw white, whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that using the word white, either on its own or as a component, to talk about all the members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute person everywhere where white now occurs. Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of course find this preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are created equal." Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of Independence well understood the poetry of our language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All persons are created equal," or "All whites and blacks are created equal." Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are redundant. In most contexts, it is self-evident when white is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the darker race just as much as fairskins.

There is nothing denigrating to black people in being subsumed under the rubric white--no more than under the rubric person. After all, white is a mixture of all the colors of the rainbow, including black. Used inclusively, the word white has no connotations whatsoever of race. Yet many people are hung up on this point. A prime example is Abraham Moses, one of the more vocal spokeswhites for making such a shift. For years, Niss Moses, autheroon of the well-known negrist tracts "A Handbook of Nonracist Writing" and "Words and Blacks," has had nothing better to do than go around the country making speeches advocating the downfall of "racist language" that ble objects to. But when you analyze bler objections, you find they all fall apart at the seams. Niss Moses says that words like chairwhite suggest to people--most especially impressionable young whiteys and blackeys--that all chairwhites belong to the white race. How absurd! It is quite obvious, for instance, that the chairwhite of the League of Black Voters is going to be a black, not a white. Nobody need think twice about it. As a matter of fact, the suffix white is usually not pronounced with a long `i' as in the noun white, but like `wit,' as in the terms saleswhite, freshwhite, penwhiteship, first basewhite, and so on. It's just a simple and useful component in building race-neutral words.

But Niss Moses would have you sit up and start hollering "Racism!" In fact, Niss Moses sees evidence of racism under every stone. Ble has written a famous article, in which ble vehemently objects to the immortal and poetic words of the first white on the moon, Captain Nellie Strongarm. If you will recall, whis words were: "One small step for a white, a giant step for whitekind." This noble sentiment is anything but racist; it is simply a celebration of a glorious moment in the history of White.

Another of Niss Moses's shrill objections is to the age-old differentiation of whites from blacks by the third-person pronouns whe and ble. Ble promotes an absurd notion: that what we really need in English is a single pronoun covering both races. Numerous suggestions have been made, such as pe, tey, and others. These are all repugnant to the nature of the English language, as the average white in the street will testify, even if whe has no linguistic training whatsoever. Then there are the advocates of usages such as "whe or ble," "whis or bler," and so forth. This makes for monstrosities such has the sentence "When the next president takes office, whe or ble will have to choose whis or bler cabinet with great care, for whe or ble would not want to offend any minorities." Constrast this with the spare elegance of the normal way of putting it, and there is no question which way we ought to speak. There are, of course, some yapping black libbers who advocate writing bl/whe everywhere, which, aside from looking terrible, has no reasonable pronunciation. Shall be say blooey all the time when we simply mean whe? Who wants to sound like a white with a chronic sneeze?

. . . I would merely point out to the overzealous that there are some extravagant notions about language that should be recognized for what they are: cheap attempts to let dogmatic, narrow minds enforce their views on the speakers lucky enough to have inherited the richest, most beautiful and flexible language on earth, a language whose traditions run back through the centuries to such deathless poets as Milton, Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Keats, Walt Whitwhite, and so many others. Our language owes an incalculable debt to these whites for their clarity of vision and expression, and if the shallow minds of bandwagon-jumping negrists succeed in destroying this precious heritage for all whites of good will, that will be, without any doubt, a truly female day in the history of Northern White.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
Long and hillarious post snipped.

Reminds me of when I visited Beloit College many years ago.

Me: Sam, I'm really worried about the quality of education y'all recieve here.
Sam: What do you mean?
Me: *gestures to the womyn's studies signs* Apparently the women's studies groups can't spell.
Sam: *Visably pales* Don't say that too loud!


dmchucky69 wrote:


Good to see you are hanging in there Gary. Stay frosty.

Will do. ;)

1 to 50 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Tea Party in Kentucky All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.