On November 3, 2011 at 23:29, Ranger Home said...
And how do you not fit into this webster definition? I dont get your reply, albeit constant and steady, it still doesnt apply.
Because you parse the definition to sorta kinda help make it mean what you want to mean. The problem is the by separating the definition as you have you can then apply it to practically everybody. It's the second and third parts of the definition that make the clarification. That is where you fit in with your obvious negative opinion of liberals.
Its a question. YOU took it as an insult. I cannot help how you interpret questions.
I see. You're
just asking questions. Not actually saying it, just asking. Somewhat like 'have you quit beating your wife,' except instead of violence it's 'brainwashing.' Stay classy!
I am familiar with "classical liberalism". That has nothing to do with TODAYS liberals. Why make the comparison? There is no comparison. Makes no sense. This is your common method of attack, throw meaningless things out there and hope no one gets it? You post this to make it appear that classical liberalism is the same as todays liberalism? Assuming we are all stupid and dont know the difference? I would stray from posting like this as it makes you become more transparent and less credible. Call me a classical liberal and I would say thank you and dont you wish it was the same as todays liberals? I would have respected you more.
Uh, I was just talking about liberalism. I figured you figured I was some liberal, but I pointed how the term liberal has roots in today's conservative beliefs... you don't understand how I voted GOP but you seem to think I'm a liberal... but hey, that message was not understood. Maybe I was not clear enough. It was not an attack. I thought it might be something 'safe' to redirect to. Geebus.
The larger issue is you are stuck on your own beliefs and are more narrow minded than you try to lead us into believing. I dont hate you though. :)
Actually the larger issue isn't my beliefs but Civil Righs Law as it applies to some little whole in the wall gun training facility down in Texas and why you (or others) would support it. Feel free to get back on track and clarify why you support it. So far I've seen lots of beliefs stated but not the because. I'm glad you don't hate me, I don't hate you (
wry smile). But how about we talk about your beliefs now? It's pretty clear you think I'm a bigoted liberal and you support this guy or are against this law, OK got it we can move on now.
You can label the belief of choosing how to conduct business however you want. Are you stating if someone turned away business because the customer was liberal is against the law? What law states I MUST do business with everyone that walks in my door? I dont mean because someonse religion or color. What law protects me from saying NO to someone I dont trust? Is that against the law? What law? While you are literate and have a way with words, you also have a way of twisting comments to tailor others to your belief. Against the law? certainly not, more power to you. Doesnt always work, though.
I prefer to label it discrimination because it's a pretty clear definition of what is happening. The issue is the legality of the specific discrimination. I cannot be sure that being turned away from services provided for 'being liberal' is illegal or worth a case. However, it is much different to deny Muslims and non-Christian Arabs a service that you advertise on public radio. I'm not sure it would be illegal to discriminate against somebody who voted for Obama, but somebody may some day try it. So it seems you like you think it's OK to discriminate on all the specific terms because I thought you supported this guy fully. Do you agree that discriminating against all those parties/for those reasons is OK?
The law is not 'you have to do business with everyone who walks in your door.' The law is that you cannot discriminate for specific reasons and/or in certain circumstances. That is a clear and very important distinction. Here we have a situation where a business is engaging in advertising that they will discriminate for those specifically illegal reasons/circumstances as stated in the Civil Rights Act (actually one guy in this thread thinks it's not illegal, I believe it is). We have a few people in this thread who support this guy in some way shape or form.
I sounds like you know it came from Ed? Otherwise, why would you make the comment? Ed who?
I was making a joke about Ed. Ed has been here a long time with conspiratorial leanings and I assumed you'd know who I was talking about. He made a comment about 'thoughts' similar to yours. My bad, I thought it was funny.
