Romney VS Obama: The Megathread

[Cannot think of a name]

You want me to explain why allowing businesses to discriminate is stupid? What in the...

People should have a choice in who they do business with (and a choice in who they do almost anything with).

Let's say I have a restaurant, and I hate Canadians.

So, I refuse service to Canadians in my restaurant. It's my restaurant, I should have the choice to do commerce and business with whomever I please.

Obviously, refusing service to someone because where they are born/their race/their gender/their sexual orientation is stupid and bigoted. This gives me a bad name as a bigot. People in today's world don't like bigots. So, they will resent me, and not come into my restaurant. Not only will I loose the Canadian customers, but I will loose other customers as well, and be hated by my community. So naturally, I would change my restaurant to allow Canadians.

Ron Paul and his followers keep repeating this 'simple logic' about excluding blacks (let's drop the Canadian thing, we know what's being discussed here) being bad for business because people don't like discrimination. Which is all fine and good, providing you're in an area where people don't like discrimination. If not, suck it darky. Which, you know, is exactly what was happening when anti-discrimination laws were put in place.

But of course, you all know that, because how could you not? So I wonder what the purpose of the willful ignorance is.

[North California]

People should have a choice in who they do business with (and a choice in who they do almost anything with).

Why?

Let's say I have a restaurant, and I hate Canadians.

So, I refuse service to Canadians in my restaurant. It's my restaurant, I should have the choice to do commerce and business with whomever I please.

Yeah, no. Again, explain why you should have such a right.

Obviously, refusing service to someone because where they are born/their race/their gender/their sexual orientation is stupid and bigoted. This gives me a bad name as a bigot. People in today's world don't like bigots. So, they will resent me, and not come into my restaurant. Not only will I loose the Canadian customers, but I will loose other customers as well, and be hated by my community. So naturally, I would change my restaurant to allow Canadians.

Yeah, no. If you know for a fact that people will stop buying from there, why can't the government speed it up and just make it illegal to discriminate? You just hate government, you don't care about freedoms. That's the problem with Ron Paul. Freedom doesn't mean doing what you want, it means being free to do what you want as long as it doesn't abridge another person's freedom.

1. Because freedom choice let's me interact with whomever I want.

2. See above^

3. Refusing someone service doesn't restrict their freedom. If I refuse them service, they can eat at another restaurant. It's not like my restaurant is the only on on the planet.

Also, what does the government decide as discrimination? A racist joke? An unpopular opinion? Not being allowed to decide who you can do business with.


I have a friend that for whatever reason, doesn't find Asian girls to be attractive, and doesn't want to date them. Should he be charged with discrimination because he refused "service" (dating) to someone?

[Des-Bal]

But still, the fact that government passed legislation to make private entities be segregated is wrong.

I agree with that in spirit but at the same time I do not believe non-legislative efforts would have done the trick.

Yeah, but we as a society decided not to tolerate dickishness anymore, so we passed a law against it so no one has to be offended by its presence.

The idea that I am allowed to offend you goes against what this country is all about.

[North California]

People should have a choice in who they do business with (and a choice in who they do almost anything with).

Let's say I have a restaurant, and I hate Canadians.

So, I refuse service to Canadians in my restaurant. It's my restaurant, I should have the choice to do commerce and business with whomever I please.

Obviously, refusing service to someone because where they are born/their race/their gender/their sexual orientation is stupid and bigoted. This gives me a bad name as a bigot. People in today's world don't like bigots. So, they will resent me, and not come into my restaurant. Not only will I loose the Canadian customers, but I will loose other customers as well, and be hated by my community. So naturally, I would change my restaurant to allow Canadians.

Ron Paul and his followers keep repeating this 'simple logic' about excluding blacks (let's drop the Canadian thing, we know what's being discussed here) being bad for business because people don't like discrimination. Which is all fine and good, providing you're in an area where people don't like discrimination. If not, suck it darky. Which, you know, is exactly what was happening when anti-discrimination laws were put in place.

But of course, you all know that, because how could you not? So I wonder what the purpose of the willful ignorance is.

Guess what? This isn't 1860. Times have changed.

[Des-Bal]

I think this article should help: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

Can't tell if serious.

[Farnhamia]

The Fed is "owned" by private banks...

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

Zinger!!!

You didn't actually read that, did you? Here:

Q: Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank?

A: There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks. But the banks don’t necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

FULL ANSWER

The stockholders in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are the privately owned banks that fall under the Federal Reserve System. These include all national banks (chartered by the federal government) and those state-chartered banks that wish to join and meet certain requirements. About 38 percent of the nation’s more than 8,000 banks are members of the system, and thus own the Fed banks.

The concept of "ownership" needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Bank’s board of directors.

The private banks also have a voice in regulating the nation’s money supply and setting targets for short-term interest rates, but it’s a minority voice. Those decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, which has a dozen voting members, only five of whom come from the banks. The remaining seven, a voting majority, are the Fed’s Board of Governors who, as mentioned, are appointed by the president.

The Fed is a little defensive about the question of ownership. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, the Federal Reserve Board says: "The Federal Reserve System is not ‘owned’ by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects." It continues:

Federal Reserve Board: As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations–possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I have a friend that for whatever reason, doesn't find Asian girls to be attractive, and doesn't want to date them. Should he be charged with discrimination because he refused "service" (dating) to someone?

Unless he's a gigolo, no, as it's only discrimination if it's related to refusing to do business with someone on the basis of ethnic origin. He has a legal right to not date Asian women. If he's a gigolo, he doesn't have the legal right to refuse an Asian woman's 'request' because she's Asian. That's my understanding, which is undoubtedly pretty poor.

[Mavorpen]

Let people fail on their own. Who knows, some of those places might make it, though they'll be hated by others.

No.

By your argument: We know people dislike racist hate speech. So let's ban that since the public will decide they're bigots and won't listen to them. Let govt. speed that up.

No. They aren't hurting anyone and it's a part of the Bill of Rights. Shit comparison is shit.

[North California]

I'm packing heat in my igloo. If you know what I mean...

Quick, let's check that out before we're killed for blasphemy - I can't wait any longer.

I found us a box to stow away in on a boat.

Space is a little...close quarters...

[Unified Provinces]

Why?

Yeah, no. Again, explain why you should have such a right.

Let people fail on their own. Who knows, some of those places might make it, though they'll be hated by others.

By your argument: We know people dislike racist hate speech. So let's ban that since the public will decide they're bigots and won't listen to them. Let govt. speed that up.

Civil Rights legislation was passed in a time when there was widespread and institutionalized racism. It was and still is needed to safeguard civil rights. This legislation isn't limiting a business owner to refuse service to someone based on say, how they act in their establishment, but based on their race, sex, or sexual orientation.

[Ridicularia]

Yeah, but we as a society decided not to tolerate dickishness anymore, so we passed a law against it so no one has to be offended by its presence.

The idea that I am allowed to offend you goes against what this country is all about.

In this case, the dickishness in question substantially infringed on other people's rights, which is definitely not what this country is about.

[Unified Provinces]

I think this article should help: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

Can't tell if serious.

Of course I am. RationalWiki may contain some snark, but it is a trustworthy and accurate website.

[Spritalia]

Let people fail on their own. Who knows, some of those places might make it, though they'll be hated by others.

By your argument: We know people dislike racist hate speech. So let's ban that since the public will decide they're bigots and won't listen to them. Let govt. speed that up.

Civil Rights legislation was passed in a time when there was widespread and institutionalized racism. It was and still is needed to safeguard civil rights. This legislation isn't limiting a business owner to refuse service to someone based on say, how they act in their establishment, but based on their race, sex, or sexual orientation.

I may have read that wrong, but I know several gay folks who have been fired for being, essentially gay.

[Libertas Liber]

Zinger!!!

You didn't actually read that, did you?

I did. The banks still have a say. And who's to say that just because the other 7 governors are appointed by the pres. makes them unlikely to vote with the bankers?

[Mavorpen]

1. Because freedom choice let's me interact with whomever I want.

Not how it works. People have the right to purchase services they want. You have no right to deny them the services.

3. Refusing someone service doesn't restrict their freedom. If I refuse them service, they can eat at another restaurant. It's not like my restaurant is the only on on the planet.

Yes, it does. If someone specifically likes your burger, they have the right to eat your burger. Restaurants do not have the same recipes. You are restricting their freedom.

Also, what does the government decide as discrimination? A racist joke? An unpopular opinion? Not being allowed to decide who you can do business with.

The first two aren't discrimination. The last is. It's simple when you actually look at the definition.

I have a friend that for whatever reason, doesn't find Asian girls to be attractive, and doesn't want to date them. Should he be charged with discrimination because he refused "service" (dating) to someone?

Unless your friend is a prostitute, this is a stupid analogy.

[North California]

I have a friend that for whatever reason, doesn't find Asian girls to be attractive, and doesn't want to date them. Should he be charged with discrimination because he refused "service" (dating) to someone?

Unless he's a gigolo, no, as it's only discrimination if it's related to refusing to do business with someone on the basis of ethnic origin. He has a legal right to not date Asian women. If he's a gigolo, he doesn't have the legal right to refuse an Asian woman's 'request' because she's Asian. That's my understanding, which is undoubtedly pretty poor.

What? So if an Asian girl wants to date him, and he says, "Sorry, I don't date Asian chicks".

That's illegal?

I may have read your post wrong, but that's the message I got.

Also, what's a gigolo?

[Des-Bal]

What? So if an Asian girl wants to date him, and he says, "Sorry, I don't date Asian chicks".

That's illegal?

I may have read your post wrong, but that's the message I got.

Also, what's a gigolo?

Man-whore.

[Des-Bal]

Not how it works. People have the right to purchase services they want. You have no right to deny them the services.

Why don't I have the right to run my business the way I want? The idea that people have a right to a private businesses services is not an idea I agree with.

[Spritalia]

I found us a box to stow away in on a boat.

Space is a little...close quarters...

Take me now!

[Libertas Liber]

Unless he's a gigolo, no, as it's only discrimination if it's related to refusing to do business with someone on the basis of ethnic origin. He has a legal right to not date Asian women. If he's a gigolo, he doesn't have the legal right to refuse an Asian woman's 'request' because she's Asian. That's my understanding, which is undoubtedly pretty poor.

What? So if an Asian girl wants to date him, and he says, "Sorry, I don't date Asian chicks".

That's illegal?

I may have read your post wrong, but that's the message I got.

Also, what's a gigolo?

Male prostitute. The word was essential to his argument. So you might want to retry your argument.

[Cannot think of a name]

Ron Paul and his followers keep repeating this 'simple logic' about excluding blacks (let's drop the Canadian thing, we know what's being discussed here) being bad for business because people don't like discrimination. Which is all fine and good, providing you're in an area where people don't like discrimination. If not, suck it darky. Which, you know, is exactly what was happening when anti-discrimination laws were put in place.

But of course, you all know that, because how could you not? So I wonder what the purpose of the willful ignorance is.

Guess what? This isn't 1860. Times have changed.

Ever been to Mississippi?

[North California]

1. Because freedom choice let's me interact with whomever I want.

Not how it works. People have the right to purchase services they want. You have no right to deny them the services.

3. Refusing someone service doesn't restrict their freedom. If I refuse them service, they can eat at another restaurant. It's not like my restaurant is the only on on the planet.

Yes, it does. If someone specifically likes your burger, they have the right to eat your burger. Restaurants do not have the same recipes. You are restricting their freedom.

Also, what does the government decide as discrimination? A racist joke? An unpopular opinion? Not being allowed to decide who you can do business with.

The first two aren't discrimination. The last is. It's simple when you actually look at the definition.

I have a friend that for whatever reason, doesn't find Asian girls to be attractive, and doesn't want to date them. Should he be charged with discrimination because he refused "service" (dating) to someone?

Unless your friend is a prostitute, this is a stupid analogy.

1. Restaurants carry signs that say, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

2. If someone pays me to cook a burger, and I don't, that's illegal. But just because someone likes my burger doesn't mean I need to cook it. What if I'm tired or not feeling well?

3. Uh... no. You can choose marriage partner. You can choose your business partner.

4. No. It's a good analogy. Same principle.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Unless he's a gigolo, no, as it's only discrimination if it's related to refusing to do business with someone on the basis of ethnic origin. He has a legal right to not date Asian women. If he's a gigolo, he doesn't have the legal right to refuse an Asian woman's 'request' because she's Asian. That's my understanding, which is undoubtedly pretty poor.

What? So if an Asian girl wants to date him, and he says, "Sorry, I don't date Asian chicks".

That's illegal?

I may have read your post wrong, but that's the message I got.

Also, what's a gigolo?

A gigolo is a male prostitute/escort, and the word is integral to my argument.

[Mavorpen]

Not how it works. People have the right to purchase services they want. You have no right to deny them the services.

Why don't I have the right to run my business the way I want? The idea that people have a right to a private businesses services is not an idea I agree with.

Because yet again, blocking other freedoms invalidates whatever right you think you have.

[North California]

Guess what? This isn't 1860. Times have changed.

Ever been to Mississippi?

I've been to Texas, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, every hick town in California, and to NASCAR races. Close enough.


At NASCAR, it was actually a very diverse fan base. Most people come to watch the race, not do start a race war. No pun intended.

For the other places, I don't recall meeting any racists. Well, I think I met like one or two. Both in California.