The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[GodFearinGunTotin]

As I said previously I don’t see discremenating people as being Christian. But frankly if you wish to drag religion into it why don’t we discuss all those dark dirty details of how religion has been the reason used for mistreating people or going to war.

Strawman. In a truly free society, people should have wide discretion with whom they wish to associate, do business, etc. Your comments would tend to lead one in believing you support using the government to decide who has privilege against others, whose rights must be subservient to others. If there are laws mandating with whom somebody must serve, then there should be laws preventing you from discriminating from which business you can patronize.

 

[Kutnupe14]

kut?

 

[printcraft]

Alpo still owes me a case of Blue Moon, give him a call.

 

[hoosierdoc]

You are discriminating, which is smart, and something we all do dozens of times a day.

No, I'm prejudiced against chicagoans based on news stories. Discriminating would be choosing or avoiding something. Prejudiced is already having an idea about someone or something before meeting them, at least

the assumption is that the prejudice is a negative one and so it's bad

 

[Woobie]

Yeah, I completely support any entrepreneur's ability to do with his or business as they please.

Some months back I went to the Pipe Puffer in Greenwood. While I was there, a staff member (owner?) was shooting the breeze with a regulatband made a number of blatantly racist remarks. Now I think that is his right. And while the law doesn't reflect this, I think he should have the right to refuse service to black people. There are no laws against being bad at your job, and yet the market figures that out, and those businesses that suck go under. So why have laws against being a horrible person? Let the consumer run those people out of business.

In the end, I'm kind of glad he said what he did. Otherwise I might have spent money there, and I would hate to know I supported someone like that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah, I completely support any entrepreneur's ability to do with his or business as they please.

Some months back I went to the Pipe Puffer in Greenwood. While I was there, a staff member (owner?) was shooting the breeze with a regulatband made a number of blatantly racist remarks. Now I think that is his right. And while the law doesn't reflect this, I think he should have the right to refuse service to black people. There are no laws against being bad at your job, and yet the market figures that out, and those businesses that suck go under. So why have laws against being a horrible person? Let the consumer run those people out of business.

In the end, I'm kind of glad he said what he did. Otherwise I might have spent money there, and I would hate to know I supported someone like that.

Regular? That one's really tripped me up.

 

[Woobie]

Regular? That one's really tripped me up.

Come one man, expand your vocabulary!






Or I could learn to type. It's supposed to be "regular and". Thank you, sir.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Come one man, expand your vocabulary!






Or I could learn to type. It's supposed to be "regular and". Thank you, sir.

LOL...I really wasn't trying to be a grammar nazi...I was truly perplexed.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

i'm not sure being prejudicial is wrong. Making assumptions of a person based on certain demographics may be very accurate and appropriate.

I go to Chicago and walk down the street, trusting no one. I'm prejudiced against chicagoans. Am I evil, or cautious?

We prejudge people every day.All of us.Where to park the car.Shopping in high crime areas or not.Not eating at a restaurant because someone said it sucked.Looking for a faster lane at the supermarket cause one line seems slow.Buying a better product because the Chinese model is cheesy.Not letting a person in to your home,because of their looks.I prejudge every day.It is a survival instinct. JMO

 

[ghitch75]

why must they be eat up with the stupids........

John Lewis wishes a 'Happy Birthday' to 'Madame President' Hillary Clinton | Fox News

 

[ghitch75]

here we go!!!......

Mueller facing new Republican pressure to resign in Russia probe | Fox News

 

[Tombs]

i'm not sure being prejudicial is wrong. Making assumptions of a person based on certain demographics may be very accurate and appropriate.

I go to Chicago and walk down the street, trusting no one. I'm prejudiced against chicagoans. Am I evil, or cautious?

Not evil or cautious, just educated about the situation you're entering into.

A scientist isn't a bad person because they put on gloves before handling strong acids even though they might have never been burned.

 

[Kutnupe14]

here we go!!!......

Mueller facing new Republican pressure to resign in Russia probe | Fox News

No way in hell that Mueller resigns. Regardless of how the investigation turns out, he's etching his name in the history books.

 

[ghitch75]

No way in hell that Mueller resigns. Regardless of how the investigation turns out, he's etching his name in the history books.

he will have to if they find conflicts of interest....

 

[Alpo]

Did Kenneth Starr resign?

NO!

Why not?

[video=youtube_share;LEEyijiTW-I]http://youtu.be/LEEyijiTW-I[/video]

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Besides his whole early attempts in Indiana to allow business to discriminate based on sexual preference will permantly turn me off on Pence. Another holier than thou individual if you ask me. He does seem fairly modest but that discrimination thing was wrong.

Do you know what was the reason behind that bill? It had nothing to do with sexual orientation, it was due to the Hobby lobby decision by SCOTUS. The bills nickname was the hobby lobby bill, not the no cake for gays bill.

That’s bullsh**. He tried to give them a legal means to discriminate against other people.

Oh you do know that Clinton signed virtually the same legislation into effect at the Fed level, and Obama championed the same at the state level in IL? Along with a whole host of other Dems in various states?

No, that was my perception, and my interpretation. No, that’s how I see this lame excuse for something to preserve one’s right to discriminate against other people.

Where did you get that perception/interpretation? There was nothing in that bill about discriminating.

It does allow buisness to refuse service based on sexual preference doesn’t it?

Do it didn't. There was nothing stopping them before under IN or Federal law from doing so, why would they need a bill to allow it? And there was nothing in the bill regarding sexual preference.

Well, I think every buisness has the right to refuse service. Just think the law that was crafted is not something that should be tolerated. Legalized discremination is just plain wrong.

What exactly in that bill was crafted that shouldn't be tolerated? That people shouldn't have to disregard their religious beliefs to run a business?

Once again you miss the entire point. Freedom to practice one's religion is an enumerated right under the Bill of Rights. Freedom to buy a cake with you and your buddy Bob on it is not. Do I support you and your buddy Bob being able to buy a cake? Sure I do. But if it violates the bakers religion to sell you one then I say go find another baker.

While I agree with you, the purpose and reasoning behind that bill had nothing to do with that.

 

[ghitch75]

Did Kenneth Starr resign?

NO!

Why not?

[video=youtube_share;LEEyijiTW-I]http://youtu.be/LEEyijiTW-I[/video]

Google is your friend....conflicts of interest has nothing to do with courage......come on Alpo....

 

[Kutnupe14]

he will have to if they find conflicts of interest....

I think making conflict of interest case would be difficult. Working together does not meet the criteria needed for a conflict of interest. You'd have to prove there would be some reason why Mueller would potentially have difficulty in choosing loyalties between the investigation and Comey.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Google is your friend....conflicts of interest has nothing to do with courage......come on Alpo....

The Kenneth Starr reference is an excellent example, given who he worked for prior to his involvement with Whitewater. If he didn't have a conflict of interest by previously representing anti-Clinton entities, and then going to subsequently investigating Clinton, then there's no way Mueller has one.

 

[Alpo]

Google is your friend....conflicts of interest has nothing to do with courage......come on Alpo....

OK. Go ahead. List his conflicts of interest.

If you're thinking of the Kushner "connection", that would be a conflict in favor of the alleged miscreant...but it doesn't wash anyway.

Other than that, there is no conflict that I'm aware of. Just because he puts his pants on one leg at a time does not preclude him from investigating all males.