Who likes Ron Paul here?

[wolfd]

Originally Posted by Rick Waldroup

King Fruitcake must be creaming in his pants. It appears he has won the backing of the Tea Baggers in South Carolina.

Ron Paul Tea Party Endorsement Expected in South Carolina - Ron Paul - Zimbio

Looks like the Tea Party are voting against Mitt.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by wolfd

Looks like the Tea Party are voting against Mitt.

Totally expected that. Been saying from the beginning that he would not have their support. Not when he pushed for his own version of government subsidized healthcare as governor.

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

There does not have to be one. The standard that the athletes are held to will decide that.

That is patronizing at the very least, and incredibly sexist at the most. Ever seen women play field hockey?

I should have specified mens rough sports, they have no problem going after mens golf tournaments, but they're not going after football.

Yes. The same way we keep 16 year olds out of proffesional sports. They do not have the physical strenght to play at that level yet. And most women will never have it either.

You're ok with keeping one group seperate from another in some situations, but not others. Who then sets the policy?

What about 17...

Kobe Bryant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kobe Bryant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kobe Bryant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That has public access.

Doesn't matter who has access, it's who owns it. You own your house, you get to decide who comes and goes. Someone owns their resturaunt, they get to decide who comes and goes.

Once again, it has public access. Seriously, which part of that don't you get?

So then what is private property?

An inclusive society. The moment any society becomes exclusive, it looses its moral authority and certainly its democracy, as democracy by its very nature is inclusive.

"Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives."

Society is inclusive, anyone can be a part of this society, but people still have to right to exclude who they want from their private areas.

[Douglas]

The only absolutes you will find are in the Vodka section of your local liquor store. Just like Black and White really only exists in film and crayons.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by prohobo

You're ok with keeping one group separate from another in some situations, but not others. Who then sets the policy?

Negotiations usually get it done.

Originally Posted by prohobo

Doesn't matter who has access, it's who owns it. You own your house, you get to decide who comes and goes. Someone owns their resturaunt, they get to decide who comes and goes.

Normally they dont. But they use to. Once again, if the restaurant has public access, say like a fast food restaurant, then they cannot control who comes in. The only thing they can do is refuse to serve the person if they do not meet the basic standard of the restaurant. Color of skin is not a valid reason.

If it is a private club, then they can limit who comes in according to their rules. One of the rules cannot be the race of the person.

The argument you use is pointless, as the laws of your land say so.

And it does not matter who gets in, those laws will not change, no matter what they say they will do.

Originally Posted by prohobo

So then what is private property?

There is no such thing as absolute private property. If the government wants it, there are ways for them to get it. Expropriation being one.

And every jurisdiction in the US, local, state or federal can dictate to what you can or cannot do on the land.

Private Property is a myth and always has been.

And to be absolutely clear, it always will be. No politician, no matter what they say they will do, will give up their power once they get in.

If you think that for one minute that any Libertarian will ever give away power then you are delusional.

He is saying exactly what you want to hear. In that way, he is just like every other politician who has ever held power. They all find out in the end that they cannot deliver what they say they are going to do.

Originally Posted by prohobo

Society is inclusive, anyone can be a part of this society, but people still have to right to exclude who they want from their private areas.

Not everyone, and not all the time. Although it was more like that in the past, but even then "Private Property" was a myth.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by Douglas

The only absolutes you will find are in the Vodka section of your local liquor store. Just like Black and White really only exists in film and crayons.

And this is point that they are all missing.

They are trying to use Black and White arguments in a multi colored world to control people that they do not like. Oh, they say they don't care, but it is usually a "not in my neighborhood" mentality.

It is the argument of racists and elitists.

You can usually tell a racist when they say the following,

"I am not a racist but........."

My experience is that the moment someone says they are not a racist, they usually are. People who are not racists, don't brag about it.

And you can usually replace the word, racist, above with, sexist, elitist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc, etc.

Private Property rights are a way of excluding those they do not want around them.

[CanadianRocky]

Originally Posted by wolfd

Looks like the Tea Party are voting against Mitt.

This type of division is exactly what President Obama wants.

He does not have to lose the Presidential race, all he has to do is watch the Republicans self destruct.

I love it.

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by Douglas

The only absolutes you will find are in the Vodka section of your local liquor store. Just like Black and White really only exists in film and crayons.

And that's why we have 40,000 laws going into effect this year, no one is willing to draw a line and everyone is willing to enforce their opinion on someone else.

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

Negotiations usually get it done.

So the owners...

Normally they dont. But they use to. Once again, if the restaurant has public access, say like a fast food restaurant, then they cannot control who comes in. The only thing they can do is refuse to serve the person if they do not meet the basic standard of the restaurant. Color of skin is not a valid reason.

What determines public access then? If I can just walk into a restaurant and it's public access, then why can't I just walk into your house and call it public access?

If it is a private club, then they can limit who comes in according to their rules. One of the rules cannot be the race of the person.

But gender is ok? This is what I disagree with, gender is ok for restricting someone access, then anything should be ok.

The argument you use is pointless, as the laws of your land say so.

Not like we don't have too many of those...

And it does not matter who gets in, those laws will not change, no matter what they say they will do.

Maybe not, but we can try...

There is no such thing as absolute private property. If the government wants it, there are ways for them to get it. Expropriation being one.

Without compensation, it's simply theft.

And every jurisdiction in the US, local, state or federal can dictate to what you can or cannot do on the land.

Private Property is a myth and always has been.

There-in lies the issue, the government is overstepping the bounds

And to be absolutely clear, it always will be. No politician, no matter what they say they will do, will give up their power once they get in.

If you think that for one minute that any Libertarian will ever give away power then you are delusional.

He is saying exactly what you want to hear. In that way, he is just like every other politician who has ever held power. They all find out in the end that they cannot deliver what they say they are going to do.

So we just sit back and do nothing? Like I told, I think it was Douglas, in an absolute worst case scenario with Paul, we end up with just another politician. With the other candidates... that's guaranteed.

Not everyone, and not all the time. Although it was more like that in the past, but even then "Private Property" was a myth.

If Private Property is a myth, then why do police need warrants to come into you house? If it's not private, why don't they just walk in?

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

And this is point that they are all missing.

They are trying to use Black and White arguments in a multi colored world to control people that they do not like. Oh, they say they don't care, but it is usually a "not in my neighborhood" mentality.

Maybe it's the multi-colored world that's trying to control people they don't like.

It is the argument of racists and elitists.

You can usually tell a racist when they say the following,

"I am not a racist but........."

My experience is that the moment someone says they are not a racist, they usually are. People who are not racists, don't brag about it.

And you can usually replace the word, racist, above with, sexist, elitist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, etc, etc.

Lemme guess... you're not a sexist?

Originally Posted by prohobo

Federal court rules for amateur woman golfer barred from men's tournament at municipal course - ESPN

And when they do compete, they get their own set of rules to compete by.

With Head Start, Woman Wins Los Angeles Marathon - New York Times



So you're ok with keeping men and women separate based solely on something they have no control over...

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

Yes. The same way we keep 16 year olds out of proffesional sports. They do not have the physical strenght to play at that level yet. And most women will never have it either.

Private Property rights are a way of excluding those they do not want around them.

That's kind of the idea... the problem is everyone has their own opinion about what someone else should do with their property.




Lemme guess... you're not a sexist?

Originally Posted by prohobo

Federal court rules for amateur woman golfer barred from men's tournament at municipal course - ESPN

And when they do compete, they get their own set of rules to compete by.

With Head Start, Woman Wins Los Angeles Marathon - New York Times



So you're ok with keeping men and women separate based solely on something they have no control over...

Originally Posted by CanadianRocky

Yes. The same way we keep 16 year olds out of proffesional sports. They do not have the physical strenght to play at that level yet. And most women will never have it either.