what do you think of a landlord having no say whether or not his tenants can carry concealed weapons in his or her building.
I believe that landlords and tenants should be able to negotiate the terms of their agreements and that landlords should be able to rent to anyone or not to rent to anyone if they so choose on any basis.
Yes, but in this instance, you ARE better than Jethro, or anyone else who would allow such an aggregious practice to even exist in our Society.
The idiocy in this statement from a jackass like you is not surprising. In your world it is okay to butcher unborn innoicent children as a personal choice but the government should tell people who they should associate with. It is apparent you don't understand what you write about.
"ALL men are created EQUAL"... (I have read that somewhere).
All men are supposed to have the freedom to associate with whomever they choose. But you are a fascist in your heart. We all know that.
Hundreds of Thousands died in a thing called The Civil War, for the same reasons.
No they didn't die to end discrimination. Only an illiterate buffoon would think that.
Only a fool would think such a morraly-bankupt practice should be allowed, anywhere in America.
But why shouldn't people have the right to associate with whoever they please? Tell me that fascist.
Yes, Bill, I do believe that people should be allowed to discriminate in their private holdings and associations. Otherwise the concepts of private property and freedom of association mean nothing.
Why are black students allowed to have their own school proms, college dorms and fraternities? Shouldn't that freedom of association apply to everyone?
Why can't anyone under the age of 65 live in a child-free apartment complex?
Why do we modify the physical strength requirements for women in the armed forces and for certain other employment?
"I do believe that people should be allowed to discriminate in their private holdings and associations. Otherwise the concepts of private property and freedom of association mean nothing."
And in this world, what does the concept of community mean? -- anything?
Or, in a pure sense, does American society really have little use for community? Is that just too "European" a concept?
Are we all just a loose affiliation of individuals who occasionally unite for our own mutual benefit? Or, as they say in the Liberatarian world, enlightened self-interest.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 28, 2005 at 06:40pm.]
I think Muskwa is more interested in theory than law. Site any law, and a conservative with Libertiarian bent will just tell you that the law is an ass and Constitution has been subverted with said laws.
What I think is: that Constitution is a fine, handsome document. Society is messy. As a guide for creating a working civilization. it's incomplete. You try to get close, and that's the best you can do.
"I think I know Muskwa well enough to talk to her rationally, since she is always pretty rational with me,..."
I didn't say anything at all about the rationality of your discussion.
"But I am not sure what "Get Close" means, in this circumstance...?"
I think between the workings of human nature and Constitution itself, there's always going to be a gap. I don't think we can build a soceity that is strictly adherant to the document, nor, am I sure we should.
Bill, thanks for your response -- obviously well thought out. I do know and appreciate what you are saying.
What I am saying is that if the constitutional rights to free association and private property are hedged with exceptions, they are not being protected. The Constitution doesn't grant us rights, it protects the rights we were born with. When you chip away at one person's rights, the rights of everyone are in danger, black or white, male or female, gay or straight.
When I started in the workforce, the Women's Movement was just an annoying blip on my radar. I ran into plenty of discrimination and harrassment. I knew that I would find places to work where my abilities were the only things that counted, and I did. I didn't want someone interfering with my relationships with my employers.
Affirmative Action led to artificial treatment of some people. Ability took a back seat to quotas. Politically correct speech became the norm. Guess what that is now leading to? Actual restriction of free speech, the First Amendment, in the form of speech codes on campuses. Conservative speakers invited to campuses are protested, howled down, and hit with pies.
Political correctness, designed to avoid "offending" someone, is now being forced. That's how we lose our rights. It can and will gradually happen to all our constitutionally-protected rights if we don't stop it.
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. - Kurt Vonnegut
"Rick, why don't you think we should build a society based on the Constitution? What's wrong with it?"
I don't have a great working knowledge of the Constitution, so I probably can't give a very good answer. If government was devolved and localized, people (who say it isn't now) say it would be more responsive, but I don't know that there is strong evidence of that. If the abortion issue were taken state to state, I worry about the havoc it would wreck. That would be a pretty wrenching change. Maybe dangerous.
Though I identify with my home state, the federalist concept leaves me cold. Would be we a country or a loose affiliation of fiefdoms? What's to stop further devolvement. Would we be one day beholden to the Sheriff of the Shire?
All in all, it strikes me as a colder country. And I think the country is based on the Constitution now. You can get close, but how do you follow it to the letter?
If the abortion issue were taken state to state, I worry about the havoc it would wreck. That would be a pretty wrenching change. Maybe dangerous.
utter nonsense.
rat wrote: "And I think the country is based on the Constitution now. You can get close, but how do you follow it to the letter?" and "I don't have a great working knowledge of the Constitution, so I probably can't give a very good answer."
don't you see the inconsistency here? How would you have any clue how close we are or if the country is based on the Constitution if you don't have a working knowledge?
Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, David Horowitz, Natan Scharansky, for starters. Google "pies thrown at speakers on campus" and you'll find NO instances of pies thrown at liberal speakers. But leftys are tolerant.
Though I identify with my home state, the federalist concept leaves me cold. Would be we a country or a loose affiliation of fiefdoms?
I don't know about fiefdoms, but the Founders originally conceived of a loose affiliation of states, bound to each other only by the Constitution and for common defense.
"All politics is local." The people have greater control over politicians and policies closer to home. That's why Republicans hate the Department of Education, for one. It gives greater control to a far-away federal government and less control at the local level. And that's a bad thing, unless you believe that somehow the privileged elite in Washington know better than the people who actually have to live under their rules and regulations.
I've read countless statements by Democrats since the November election that the people "voted against their best interests." That's unbelievably patronizing. Within constitutional limits, the people should be able to live under the state and local laws that they vote on directly.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jun 4, 2005 at 07:21am.]
MUSKWA: Politically correct speech became the norm. Guess what that is now leading to? Actual restriction of free speech, the First Amendment, in the form of speech codes on campuses. Conservative speakers invited to campuses are protested, howled down, and hit with pies.
CRABS: try to keep in mind the original accusation accused "leftys" of being pie throwers, assuming pie throwers speak for all liberals.
So did you. Though I wouldn't accuse you of ranting, as in to talk wild in a vehement way, or to rave.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 25, 2005 at 08:25am.]
I admit it. I was ranting.
It's just that your last post seemed like you didn't really care.
[Edited by on May 25, 2005 at 08:30am.]
what do you think of a landlord having no say whether or not his tenants can carry concealed weapons in his or her building.
I believe that landlords and tenants should be able to negotiate the terms of their agreements and that landlords should be able to rent to anyone or not to rent to anyone if they so choose on any basis.
Until they discriminate against you?
Until they discriminate against you?
Everyone is allowed to discriminate against me. You didn't know that?
Landlords shouldn't be able to willy nilly discrimate against anyone.
Landlords shouldn't be able to willy nilly discriminate against anyone.
And you shouldn't have to serve blacks at the counter either, huh Jethro?
And you shouldn't have to serve blacks at the counter either, huh Jethro?
::sigh::
::sigh::
You always think you are better than everyone else! Damn ya!
I'm better than no one.
I'm just a human. Just like you.
:-)
Yes, but in this instance, you ARE better than Jethro, or anyone else who would allow such an aggregious practice to even exist in our Society.
The idiocy in this statement from a jackass like you is not surprising. In your world it is okay to butcher unborn innoicent children as a personal choice but the government should tell people who they should associate with. It is apparent you don't understand what you write about.
"ALL men are created EQUAL"...
(I have read that somewhere).
All men are supposed to have the freedom to associate with whomever they choose. But you are a fascist in your heart. We all know that.
Hundreds of Thousands died in a thing called
The Civil War,
for the same reasons.
No they didn't die to end discrimination. Only an illiterate buffoon would think that.
Only a fool would think such a morraly-bankupt practice should be allowed, anywhere in America.
But why shouldn't people have the right to associate with whoever they please? Tell me that fascist.
Yes, Bill, I do believe that people should be allowed to discriminate in their private holdings and associations. Otherwise the concepts of private property and freedom of association mean nothing.
Why are black students allowed to have their own school proms, college dorms and fraternities? Shouldn't that freedom of association apply to everyone?
Why can't anyone under the age of 65 live in a child-free apartment complex?
Why do we modify the physical strength requirements for women in the armed forces and for certain other employment?
And on and on...
Here's to a shooting-free Memorial weekend joe.
Everywun control you gun.
[Edited by on May 28, 2005 at 09:57am.]
"I do believe that people should be allowed to discriminate in their private holdings and associations. Otherwise the concepts of private property and freedom of association mean nothing."
And in this world, what does the concept of community mean? -- anything?
Or, in a pure sense, does American society really have little use for community? Is that just too "European" a concept?
Are we all just a loose affiliation of individuals who occasionally unite for our own mutual benefit? Or, as they say in the Liberatarian world, enlightened self-interest.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 28, 2005 at 06:40pm.]
I think Muskwa is more interested in theory than law. Site any law, and a conservative with Libertiarian bent will just tell you that the law is an ass and Constitution has been subverted with said laws.
What I think is: that Constitution is a fine, handsome document. Society is messy. As a guide for creating a working civilization. it's incomplete. You try to get close, and that's the best you can do.
"I think I know Muskwa well enough to talk to her rationally, since she is always pretty rational with me,..."
I didn't say anything at all about the rationality of your discussion.
"But I am not sure what "Get Close" means, in this circumstance...?"
I think between the workings of human nature and Constitution itself, there's always going to be a gap. I don't think we can build a soceity that is strictly adherant to the document, nor, am I sure we should.
ÂÂ
Bill, thanks for your response -- obviously well thought out. I do know and appreciate what you are saying.
What I am saying is that if the constitutional rights to free association and private property are hedged with exceptions, they are not being protected. The Constitution doesn't grant us rights, it protects the rights we were born with. When you chip away at one person's rights, the rights of everyone are in danger, black or white, male or female, gay or straight.
When I started in the workforce, the Women's Movement was just an annoying blip on my radar. I ran into plenty of discrimination and harrassment. I knew that I would find places to work where my abilities were the only things that counted, and I did. I didn't want someone interfering with my relationships with my employers.
Affirmative Action led to artificial treatment of some people. Ability took a back seat to quotas. Politically correct speech became the norm. Guess what that is now leading to? Actual restriction of free speech, the First Amendment, in the form of speech codes on campuses. Conservative speakers invited to campuses are protested, howled down, and hit with pies.
Political correctness, designed to avoid "offending" someone, is now being forced. That's how we lose our rights. It can and will gradually happen to all our constitutionally-protected rights if we don't stop it.
Rick, why don't you think we should build a society based on the Constitution? What's wrong with it?
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. - Kurt Vonnegut
"Rick, why don't you think we should build a society based on the Constitution? What's wrong with it?"
I don't have a great working knowledge of the Constitution, so I probably can't give a very good answer. If government was devolved and localized, people (who say it isn't now) say it would be more responsive, but I don't know that there is strong evidence of that. If the abortion issue were taken state to state, I worry about the havoc it would wreck. That would be a pretty wrenching change. Maybe dangerous.
Though I identify with my home state, the federalist concept leaves me cold. Would be we a country or a loose affiliation of fiefdoms? What's to stop further devolvement. Would we be one day beholden to the Sheriff of the Shire?
All in all, it strikes me as a colder country. And I think the country is based on the Constitution now. You can get close, but how do you follow it to the letter?
And in this world, what does the concept of community mean? -- anything?
It means a lot of things. It doesn't necessarily mean everyone.
Â
If the abortion issue were taken state to state, I worry about the havoc it would wreck. That would be a pretty wrenching change. Maybe dangerous.
utter nonsense.
rat wrote: "And I think the country is based on the Constitution now. You can get close, but how do you follow it to the letter?" and "I don't have a great working knowledge of the Constitution, so I probably can't give a very good answer."
don't you see the inconsistency here? How would you have any clue how close we are or if the country is based on the Constitution if you don't have a working knowledge?
So what is country based on jethro, the Koran?
utter nonsense.
If you think it's "utter nonesense" you must think the change would go smooth as silk.
So what is country based on jethro, the Koran?
apparently as far as you know. nitwit!
If you think it's "utter nonsense" you must think the change would go smooth as silk.
Change your heart, jethro.
take your own advice.
That's not the answer you're supposed to give.
You should say, "yes, Rat, I will change my heart."
[Edited by on Jun 2, 2005 at 03:40pm.]
Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, David Horowitz, Natan Scharansky, for starters. Google "pies thrown at speakers on campus" and you'll find NO instances of pies thrown at liberal speakers. But leftys are tolerant.
Bill, any response to the rest of my post #2006?
Change your heart, Muskwa.
That's not the answer you're supposed to give.
so you want to control my responses. how democratic of you.
I want you to change your heart for your own sake.
That's the mandate of the Heart Changers. We're the president's Army of Compassion.
And the guys at the regional office of the DCH said this would easier than this....
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Jun 3, 2005 at 11:00am.]
at heart you are a fascist, rick.
Change your heart, jethro.
of course not... consevatives prefer things like threats of baseball bats and death. Pies? That's not a threat to a conservative, that's a dessert.
Score some B.C. bud, crabhole?
Threats of baseball bats and death. Care to explain that?
Though I identify with my home state, the federalist concept leaves me cold. Would be we a country or a loose affiliation of fiefdoms?
I don't know about fiefdoms, but the Founders originally conceived of a loose affiliation of states, bound to each other only by the Constitution and for common defense.
"All politics is local." The people have greater control over politicians and policies closer to home. That's why Republicans hate the Department of Education, for one. It gives greater control to a far-away federal government and less control at the local level. And that's a bad thing, unless you believe that somehow the privileged elite in Washington know better than the people who actually have to live under their rules and regulations.
I've read countless statements by Democrats since the November election that the people "voted against their best interests." That's unbelievably patronizing. Within constitutional limits, the people should be able to live under the state and local laws that they vote on directly.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jun 4, 2005 at 07:21am.]
Uh huh, Ann Coulter. A satirist. Just like the folks at Air America, who simulated a gunshot assassinating President Bush.
Â
well, we could discuss the violence at abortion clinics if you like.
murder, violent intimidation... all brought to you by conservatives.
I thought satirists were supposed to be funny.
Let's conclude that neither side likes to get attacked with pies and grossly mischaracterized by nasty people looking for attention.
Ann Coulter...
I'm so damn sick of the Lefty's assuming Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh speaks for all Conservatives. I never read or listened to the them.
I tell you, I think it's the Left that keeps these people in business.
try to keep in mind the original accusation accused "leftys" of being pie throwers, assuming pie throwers speak for all liberals.
conceealed carry is about being ashamed to show the world that you are afraid of it.
MUSKWA:
Politically correct speech became the norm. Guess what that is now leading to? Actual restriction of free speech, the First Amendment, in the form of speech codes on campuses. Conservative speakers invited to campuses are protested, howled down, and hit with pies.
CRABS:
try to keep in mind the original accusation accused "leftys" of being pie throwers, assuming pie throwers speak for all liberals.
uh... where does this...
say anything about you?