CPAC Presidential Straw Poll Picks Guy Who Thinks Whites-Only Lunch Counters Should B

[nodoginnafight]

Whatever. Forecasting doesn't interest me much.

The real 'work' is talking and thinking about where we should go - that's what will end up guiding the future anyway.

Yep, if you can do a better job of convincing others to join this vision of America and what it should be, then it will become so.

I'm just pointing out that you're starting in a hole. And that's not "forecasting." You're in that hole right now.

Heh.. I'm a libertarian. I'm used to it.

Are you suggesting that's a reason to give up?

Not at all - I'm suggesting that maybe folks who feel this way should be careful about who they put front and center in championing these causes.

You KNOW that charges of racism are gonna fly - right or wrong. So putting a guy who hired "the Southern Avenger" as his communications chief in the lead position only plays into those accusations.

 

[dblack]

I understand your logic and the arguments used to support that position.

I'm just telling you that the younger generations are not buying into it on the whole. Obviously you cannot just lump all millennials into one neat box. There are plenty of exceptions - but the polling indicates that a pretty big majority are not persuaded.

Whatever. Forecasting doesn't interest me much.

The real 'work' is talking and thinking about where we should go - that's what will end up guiding the future anyway.

Yep, if you can do a better job of convincing others to join this vision of America and what it should be, then it will become so.

I'm just pointing out that you're starting in a hole. And that's not "forecasting." You're in that hole right now.

As an aside, I guess I don't get what you mean by:

I understand (but disagree) with the logic of "business owners should have the right to discriminate.

Does that mean you agree with the logic, but not the premise(s)? Does it mean you agree with the logic, but just don't care about logic? What is it you're disagreeing with? Other than just saying "it ain't gonna happen".

 

[dblack]

Yep, if you can do a better job of convincing others to join this vision of America and what it should be, then it will become so.

I'm just pointing out that you're starting in a hole. And that's not "forecasting." You're in that hole right now.

Heh.. I'm a libertarian. I'm used to it.

Are you suggesting that's a reason to give up?

Not at all - I'm suggesting that maybe folks who feel this way should be careful about who they put front and center in championing these causes.

You KNOW that charges of racism are gonna fly - right or wrong. So putting a guy who hired "the Southern Avenger" as his communications chief in the lead position only plays into those accusations.

Ahh.. well, that's a worthy observation. I'd certainly rather have someone else taking point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Whatever. Forecasting doesn't interest me much.

The real 'work' is talking and thinking about where we should go - that's what will end up guiding the future anyway.

Yep, if you can do a better job of convincing others to join this vision of America and what it should be, then it will become so.

I'm just pointing out that you're starting in a hole. And that's not "forecasting." You're in that hole right now.

As an aside, I guess I don't get what you mean by:

I understand (but disagree) with the logic of "business owners should have the right to discriminate.

Does that mean you agree with the logic, but not the premise(s)? Does it mean you agree with the logic, but just don't care about logic? What is it you're disagreeing with? Other that just saying "it ain't gonna happen".

What I am saying is that I understand the logical arguments that are used to support the foundations of the position. I think there is some merit there. But I disagree with the conclusions that are extrapolated from that foundation.

 

[dblack]

Yep, if you can do a better job of convincing others to join this vision of America and what it should be, then it will become so.

I'm just pointing out that you're starting in a hole. And that's not "forecasting." You're in that hole right now.

As an aside, I guess I don't get what you mean by:

I understand (but disagree) with the logic of "business owners should have the right to discriminate.

Does that mean you agree with the logic, but not the premise(s)? Does it mean you agree with the logic, but just don't care about logic? What is it you're disagreeing with? Other that just saying "it ain't gonna happen".

What I am saying is that I understand the logical arguments that are used to support the foundations of the position. I think there is some merit there. But I disagree with the conclusions that are extrapolated from that foundation.

But why? Not to belabor the point, but isn't the "why" the important part?

 

[High_Gravity]

All the problems in this country, and y'all are going off about white only lunch counters? Sweet Jesus smgdh.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Heh.. I'm a libertarian. I'm used to it.

Are you suggesting that's a reason to give up?

Not at all - I'm suggesting that maybe folks who feel this way should be careful about who they put front and center in championing these causes.

You KNOW that charges of racism are gonna fly - right or wrong. So putting a guy who hired "the Southern Avenger" as his communications chief in the lead position only plays into those accusations.

Ahh.. well, that's a worthy observation. I'd certainly rather have someone else taking point.

Me too - I've voted in nine presidential elections. Twice I voted for Harry Browne. I am sympathetic to a lot of Libertarian positions (not all - but many).

I would like to see more of those Libertarian positions get more serious consideration.

 

[dblack]

All the problems in this country, and y'all are going off about white only lunch counters? Sweet Jesus smgdh.

I think they're related HG. I'm not the slightest bit interested in making racists' lives more comfortable. But a government that presumes the power to tell us who we can associate with, also presumes the power to tell us which corporations we have to buy insurance from, to spy on our emails at random, to tell us how to raise our kids - how to live our lives.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As an aside, I guess I don't get what you mean by:


Does that mean you agree with the logic, but not the premise(s)? Does it mean you agree with the logic, but just don't care about logic? What is it you're disagreeing with? Other that just saying "it ain't gonna happen".

What I am saying is that I understand the logical arguments that are used to support the foundations of the position. I think there is some merit there. But I disagree with the conclusions that are extrapolated from that foundation.

But why? Not to belabor the point, but isn't the "why" the important part?

Why I disagree with the conclusions?
Because I think it is likely to put an official stamp of approval on racism, bigotry, and a lot of other isms that are just not my vision of what America ought to be .

 

[dblack]

What I am saying is that I understand the logical arguments that are used to support the foundations of the position. I think there is some merit there. But I disagree with the conclusions that are extrapolated from that foundation.

But why? Not to belabor the point, but isn't the "why" the important part?

Why I disagree with the conclusions?
Because I think it is likely to put an official stamp of approval on racism, bigotry, and a lot of other isms that are just not my vision of what America ought to be .

Then it sounds like you disagree with my core premise, namely that government doesn't exist to impose anyone's 'vision' on others. We can create the society we want without resorting to coercion.

 

[dblack]

What I am saying is that I understand the logical arguments that are used to support the foundations of the position. I think there is some merit there. But I disagree with the conclusions that are extrapolated from that foundation.

But why? Not to belabor the point, but isn't the "why" the important part?

Why I disagree with the conclusions?
Because I think it is likely to put an official stamp of approval on racism, bigotry, and a lot of other isms that are just not my vision of what America ought to be .

Also, you'll no doubt think it naive, but I suspect that removing all the legal prohibitions on discrimination would actually marginalize racists and bigots even further. They'd no longer be able to hide behind the facade. Those eager to take advantage of the freedom to discriminate would have to face the isolation, both socially and economically, imposed on them by a culture with very little patience for their idiocy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But why? Not to belabor the point, but isn't the "why" the important part?

Why I disagree with the conclusions?
Because I think it is likely to put an official stamp of approval on racism, bigotry, and a lot of other isms that are just not my vision of what America ought to be .

Then it sounds like you disagree with my core premise, namely that government doesn't exist to impose anyone's 'vision' on others. We can create the society we wan't without resorting to coercion.

And I think that is a Utopian fantasy. While I can agree that federal intervention has exceeded the level I am comfortable with, I believe that in the real world it is necessary to a level beyond what most Libertarians are comfortable with.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But why? Not to belabor the point, but isn't the "why" the important part?

Why I disagree with the conclusions?
Because I think it is likely to put an official stamp of approval on racism, bigotry, and a lot of other isms that are just not my vision of what America ought to be .

Also, you'll no doubt think it naive, but I suspect that removing all the legal prohibitions on discrimination would actually marginalize racists and bigots even further. They'd no longer be able to hide behind the facade. Those eager to take advantage of the freedom to discriminate would have to face the isolation, both socially and economically, imposed on them by a culture with very little patience for their idiocy.

Maybe - and maybe there will be pockets all around the country that will embrace their new right to discriminate.

Can we look at some other place(s) where discrimination is codified and see how it is working out in the real world?

 

[dblack]

Why I disagree with the conclusions?
Because I think it is likely to put an official stamp of approval on racism, bigotry, and a lot of other isms that are just not my vision of what America ought to be .

Then it sounds like you disagree with my core premise, namely that government doesn't exist to impose anyone's 'vision' on others. We can create the society we wan't without resorting to coercion.

And I think that is a Utopian fantasy. While I can agree that federal intervention has exceeded the level I am comfortable with, I believe that in the real world it is necessary to a level beyond what most Libertarians are comfortable with.

Do you seen the dynamic I'm referring to though? As it is, closet racists cling to the story that the big, bad government is silencing them, that their views are righteous and true and would prevail if not for the 'oppression' of the law. How would it change their attitude if they had to face the fact that, in reality, it's society, their neighbors, their customers, their employers, etc... who have no tolerance for their views?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Then it sounds like you disagree with my core premise, namely that government doesn't exist to impose anyone's 'vision' on others. We can create the society we wan't without resorting to coercion.

And I think that is a Utopian fantasy. While I can agree that federal intervention has exceeded the level I am comfortable with, I believe that in the real world it is necessary to a level beyond what most Libertarians are comfortable with.

Do you seen the dynamic I'm referring to though? As it is, closet racists cling to the story that the big, bad government is silencing them, that their views are righteous and true and would prevail if not for the 'oppression' of the law. How would it change their attitude if they had to face the fact that, in reality, it's society, their neighbors, their customers, their employers, etc... who have no tolerance for their views?

Yes, I can see that there is a legitimate good-faith argument to be made.

 

[Redfish]

This thread is nothing but a dem/lib lie. Its how they operate, put out a lie, keep repeating it, and sooner or later some of the most ignorant amoung us begin to believe it.

its why obama was elected twice, sadly lying works when the population doesn't really give shit about who runs the country, when DWTS and Idol are better known than the pres and VP then the country is on the way down.

add the dem lies to a corrupt biased media and you have soviet russia and pravda. and many of you libs are happy about that--------amazing and very sad.

 

[Redfish]

Rand Paul did not say that he supports discrimination--------the OP is a lie.

 

[dblack]

Rand Paul did not say that he supports discrimination--------the OP is a lie.

Actually, the OP didn't say that. It was a pretty straight up representation of Paul's views.

 

[Stephanie]

Rand Paul did not say that he supports discrimination--------the OP is a lie.

It's from thinkprogress, no one should take anything they offer up serious
they took a legitimate poll and added that crap to it only to create and stir up hate

it's an ugly and lowdown dirty tactic of the left

no one should click on that site and give them support...they have enough haters already that do as we see on this board

 

[Redfish]

Rand Paul did not say that he supports discrimination--------the OP is a lie.

Actually, the OP didn't say that. It was a pretty straight up representation of Paul's views.

No, its bullshit. Bullshit created by a lying left wing shit eating website.