Fair? What’s that?

Freedom. (n) The ability to do whatever you want, as long as your government tells you to do it. No, you cannot refuse. Those signs you used to see that said: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” are now meaningless, because your private property is now public property. As Alien said, I may not agree with the use they put to their private property — however, my mistake is that I thought that private property was exactly that.

This post was last modified on January 26, 2021

perlcat: Computer geek/loudmouth

View Comments (39)

    • Most of the farms that the blacks "confiscated" after murdering or driving out the Boers who lived there are now in compete ruin. Jobs that they provided are gone, and the farms produce nothing for anybody anymore, because the ANC doesn't know how to run the farms, or make them productive. They just don't want whites to have them on general principles. I wasn't a fan of apartheid, but one can see the result of abandoning it, and maybe understand why the South Africans put it in place to begin with.

      • Reminds me of stories from the West Bank. When Israel ceded the territories to 'palestinians' for 'peace', the new land owners began throwing rocks at Israelis immediately, and once a short time had passed, the rocks were to be replaced with rockets.
        Not very long after that, the fine new caretakers of this slice of the promised land were bitching that Israel had ruined the land somehow, since all the crops that were growing there began to die and demanded that Israel come fix the problem or there would be allah to pay!
        When the fields were checked to determine the problem, it was evident that all the irrigation tubing had been removed and nothing was put in to serve its purpose, so the fields dried and the crops croaked it.
        All the tubes had been converted to missile launchers and rockets to throw at the former owners. It was allah's will and mohammy instructed them to kill the Jews with whatever they had at hand. Crops? Who needs stinking crops when the Jews are just over there, slightly out of range?

        • Actually, most of what is now Israel was a dried up dump. with "Palestinians living in poverty and filth. As soon as Israel started irrigating .growing crops, and settlements (after 1948) The surrounding "neighbors deecided they got cheated and wanted ot take it back. And when they got any portion of it back, it died, since they had n clue how to grow crops ina desert, and were too proud to ask for help. I personally think a Palestinian state should be established, then if they STILL won't let Israel alone, turn that part of the desert into glass. I have really had it with the whining an dcomplaining for 60+ years about Israel. And while I understand their desperation for some level of security, I srael has got to loosen up and let there be traffic between the 2 areas. At thispoint they are treating everyone else almost as badly as they were treated for hundreds of years!

  • I am so sick and tired of the godless, feckless, and cowardly malcontent among us shoving their singular agendas up our asses and down our throats. There is no such thing as egalitarian equality. By its own definition, it is an unapproachable and unattainable social, legal, physical, political, economic, academic threshold. The issues these human dregs foist upon the social and political fabric of this nation are foreign and loathsome to God-fearing and properly thinking people everywhere. We are no longer governed by men and women of goodwill, but rather, by shills, statists, malcontents, anarchists, fascists, racists; the selfish, the narcissistic, the slothful, the boastful...I I could go on and on. My indictment is not just upon homosexuals, because there are many other groups out there, with their singular issue agendas, vying for our attention and our money.

    We need to send a clear and unmistakable message to those who would herd us into the one world gulag archipelago. We need first to kick their asses at the balloot box...and then we just need to kick their asses!

    • Yes you CAN freely vote for Ron Paul, simply write him in to your ballot under "other".
      I, personally< prefer to cast my ballot for someone who actually stands a chance of getting elected.

      But to each their own, waste your vote if it pleases you.

        • i wanna get your position straight. Does it hang on Ron Paul having just enough delegates ( by number of states, total delegates, whatever metric) that he is guaranteed a speaking slot, and can change the minds of convention delegates and alter the outcome of the roll call?

          I suppose its possible, but hardly likely, and I imagine RNC felt permitting that possibility was less important then the branding/bounce enterprise that conventions have become

          • These things are a show anyway -- and while I think the world of Ron Paul, (we had a lot of crazies in the Revolutionary War, too, and they added a lot to it), I can see where the powers that be wanted to stick with a certain message.

            Damned glad some of his ideas are seeing the light of day. Equally glad that others aren't.

          • They could have at least let him try. And this is more then just Paul, it WILL happen again; whenever there is an "unfavorable" candidate they can now change the rules halfway into the game.

          • Your problem, young padawan, is that you assume that there is something resembling fairness in the open sewer we refer to as "politics".

            You want that, you're going to have to fight for it, just like the rest of us.

          • Not only that, but I find it highly unlikely, considering the percentage of the vote he received in the primaries, that he could have garnered enough delegates to have a chance to speak.

          • He already had enough delegates to be able to speak. Yes it was significantly fewer then Romney but he still met the minimum requirements to speak. Would he have convinced enough people to get the nomination? Probably not. But he did get enough to at be allowed to try.

          • What a waste of time THAT would have been. The primaries made it clear that not enough people approved of his platform to give him adequate delgates. Romney already HAD the delegates (many times more thatn Paul EVER gleaned) and the battle for the nomination was long since over. Now you need to decide if you are going to pout like a baby because your candidate wasn't chosen, or if you're going to put on your big boy pants, and get out and work to get Romney elected and OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE! You are bickering about the trees when the whole forest is on fire! The goal here is to beat Obama at the polls in November. We should do whatever is legal and moral to get that done, instead of whining for all the wanna-be's that didn't make the cut. For God's sake, grow up!

          • So what you're saying is that the RNC should have put aside the business of running the convention, and accomplishing what they were there for, to appease a bunch of fringe wackos, and let a man that had no chance of getting the nomination speak.

          • Actually on this I agree with the elf's sentiments too, it's just so much fun yanking his chain. "Repugnican Establishment" I hope that was on purpose, I like it.

          • Believe it or not, I agree with the elf. Paul should have spoken -- because people just come out of the woodwork to support him, and these people need to be brought into the RP, not excluded. There are similarities -- and Paul *does* have something of an influence with Romney already -- given their behavior in the primaries, where Paul went on the offensive for everyone but Romney -- even against people that had Libertarian tendencies.

            Seems to me, Paul has enough good ideas, and his cooperation would prevent a 3rd party challenge. In fact, his documented personal friendship with Romney is probably the only thing that stands between Obama's second, even more disastrous term in office thanks to a vote-draining 3rd party. You'd think the RNC would be smarter about pulling the Paul-ites in. They aren't all crazy. Mainly concerned and scared.

            Constitutionalists do not need to fear what Paul has to say -- but the Repugnican Establishment *does*, and ergo, no Paul speech.

          • Tell me something, Mr Crowley, sorry I'm chuckling as I'm thinking of the Ozzie song now. But tell me something -- as an attorney, I have a passing familiarity with the US Constitution. I have been through it top to bottom, and I find absolutely zero Constitutional authority for any organization called an Air Force. Army, Navy (including Marines) and Coast Guard, you bet. No Air Force. would President Paul restore Constitutional integrity by rolling the Air Force back into the Army Air Corp? Is that a Constitutionally permissible act, or a cynical word trick? After all, if an un-Constitutional Federal department can be legitimized simply by hiding it in a lawful one, you effectively strip the Const. of even further significance. If the Air Force can be so legitimized, can't the TSA be legitimized by making it part of the Post Office? Or making the Dept. of Education part of Treasury? How deep down the rabbit hole can this go? I am very interested in how a President Paul might address these critical Constitutional crises.

          • Yes, Paul worked hard to get enough delegates to be allowed to speak; it's only fair he be given the chance he deserves.

            And it's not just paul, by censoring him, the RNC set precedent to allow for more censoring of competing candidates in the future if they don't meet the needs of their Corporate backers.

  • The term "Civil liberty" is about as stretched as the bungee cord for a face jumping elephant these days. Mainly because the people being threatened with loss of liberty won't get off their be-hinds and organize, fund raise and protest.

  • Well, yes, Wildflower Inn is private property but it also provides services to the public (dinner parties, wedding receptions, etc) so they're covered by anti-discrimination laws. The O'Reillys are people of modest means and cannot fight the combined legal might of the state of Vermont and the ACLU, so they settled. Their inn will no longer host wedding receptions (straight or gay) so O'Reillys will lose money and maybe a living. It's sad.

    • This is one reason why I no longer own a business that has a location that serves the public. Refusing service to someone is just too much of a hassle. I had a cafe on a boardwalk in NJ, that had a sign saying people without shirts or shoes would be refused service. People coming up from the beach barefoot or shirtless would be refused at the door, but they would throw a fit over it. I tried to explain it was a safety and insurance issue, but they didn't care. It just got to be too much of a hassle.
      Now, I can simply refuse to work for someone by telling them I don't have the time to do their job. I reserve this for the people that I can tell are too annoying to deal with.

    • Seems to me like core of some redditor logic is that they only ran afoul of the law because they expressed their religious view, at one point, while attempting to refuse service.

      They could have legally refused had they said nothing. As someone commented: "the bigots have been pushed into the closet."

      Now, is this not 2 simulataneous stabs into belly of 1st Ammendment? (speech, religion)

      It is sad..

        • legally better for them to LIE about some fabricated scheduling issue. Craziness

          i'm trying to figure out why I suspect my reaction would've been different had it been an interracial couple (e.g. an eskimo and a pashtun beauty)

          Thought i loved lesbians, but maybe just the pretty ones. Ultimately i'm a horrible person

          • No, you're a creature of your genetic programming. We are all programmed to select the most attractive and viable mate based upon first impressions. Pretending it isn't what it is is just silly. However, being able to master your emotions and get to know said ugly lesbians better is what makes you a decent person. Long term, since they're out of the gene pool as far as you're concerned, it's a no-op.

            I wouldn't have turned the couple in the article away -- but then again, I don't really care -- if a gay couple wants to marry, and they got the cash to pay for my hall, what do I care? In fact, I'd treat them with dignity and respect, as in the end, that's what being a Christian is all about:
            http://imgur.com/gallery/QUHDh

          • Dude.. that image made my day

            I agree with you--i kid about being horrible. Never had a choice but to ogle the curves

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015