Chris Matthews Gets Schooled By Ron Paul

[luckytxn 2,264]

The main thing to remember is OUR body no longer belongs to us. The Feds tell us what we can ingest into our bodies in the privacy of our own homes. They tell us how we are supposed to think. They tell us which morals we have to follow. This can go on and on.

Some say a womans body is her own and she should have the choice whether to carry a baby or abort it but those same have no qualms saying what we can ingest and many also think it is OK to ban sugars and fats or anything THEY think is unhealthy for us. So what if someone wants to ingest any illegal drug in the privacy of their own home. If they come out of the home and cause trouble then they are invading our area unhealthily and we can do something. Even if someone wants to ingest poison and kill themselves slowly and horribly in the privacy of their home so what?

For the Feds to tell any business who is allowed to enter out place of business and we have to wait on them is wrong. That is an over reach. Let Bigots keep out anyone they want. They will fail as a business. The Feds are allowed to say to any institution that receives Federal money that they must be accommodating to whoever we say but that is all or refuse any and all Fed money. By allowing them this over reach then do not be surprised when they ask to start6 monitoring our homes to be sure we are complying with any moral laws that they choose to have us follow. After all what do we have to fear of them monitoring us in our home if we are being compliant and lawful?

[slim 1,525]

That's where Rand ran into trouble. "What do you mean we should allow businesses the right to not do business with people? That's not fair!"

What those fairness people fail to realize is business is not fair. When we start requiring it to be fair, the cost of goods/services goes up for everyone and the end profit goes to the regulators. Everyone loses except the government. "But at least it's fair. Everyone has the right to do business."

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The rope industry certainly never recovered after the good old free for all lynching days...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The rope industry certainly never recovered after the good old free for all lynching days...

There's a difference in the freedom to practice your business versus infringing on an individuals rights.

I don't have one single problem with a business that wants to put up "whites only" or "blacks only." - I wouldn't patron there because of it. Some would, but at the end of the day they are only hurting themselves by not only denying one set of clientel, but also losing a clientel that doesn't support bigotry.

It's the same BS when it comes to smoking bans, etc. as well. That should be left up to business owners. You have a choice to work there. You have a choice to patron there. The government should not be interfering in the aspects of the way that business conducts itself for things like that.

[slim 1,525]

The rope industry certainly never recovered after the good old free for all lynching days...

And that's the whole point. When something goes out of fashion, legal or not, business adapts or dies. The problem with what's happening today is business doesn't have to adapt because government bails them out.

[B_J 2,752]

I don't have one single problem with a business that wants to put up "whites only" or "blacks only." - I wouldn't patron there because of it. Some would, but at the end of the day they are only hurting themselves by not only denying one set of clientel, but also losing a clientel that doesn't support bigotry.

Plus, there would be tons of people exercising their right to free speech protesting the business. In this day, a business that was whites only would probably not last. Not because of the law; but because of the choices made by the business and by potential customers.

It's an interesting concept; worth discussing. However, nobody has rational discussion anymore.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Plus, there would be tons of people exercising their right to free speech protesting the business. In this day, a business that was whites only would probably not last. Not because of the law; but because of the choices made by the business and by potential customers.

It's an interesting concept; worth discussing. However, nobody has rational discussion anymore.

Your preaching to the choir. Can you give me a Hallelujah!

Overall I do think business are over regulated but I'm not sure I would be for allowing them to discriminate based on race.

Edited May 20, 2011 by _Simpson_

[B_J 2,752]

Your preaching to the choir. Can you give me a Hallelujah!

Overall I do think business are over regulated but I'm not sure I would be for allowing them to discriminate based on race.

Agreed, I'm not sure where my stance is on this issue either; but I hate seeing the Pauls labeled as racist because of where they stand on this.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Agreed, I'm not sure where my stance is on this issue either; but I hate seeing the Pauls labeled as racist because of where they stand on this.

Some people resort to name calling when they are losing an argument or don't have anything else to say.

I think it's a primal haven't evolved much thing.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[slim 1,525]

Why would you post a monkey? That's racist.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Agreed, I'm not sure where my stance is on this issue either; but I hate seeing the Pauls labeled as racist because of where they stand on this.

I think it's clear Rop Paul isnt racist, however the argument that businesses should be free to put up 'white only' signs and practice segregation because it's all ancient history is bogus.

[B_J 2,752]

the argument that businesses should be free to put up 'white only' signs and practice segregation because it's all ancient history is bogus.

Why?

The argument isn't that they should be allowed to do it because it's ancient history; the argument is that they should be allowed to do it because it is their private business and property and therefore they have the right. Why is he wrong in this?

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, the 'everyone can do it so what's the harm' argument? Brilliant

[B_J 2,752]

Ah, the 'everyone can do it so what's the harm' argument? Brilliant

I'm not sure how what you said relates to the argument the Pauls make about property rights. Sorry.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm not sure how what you said relates to the argument the Pauls make about property rights. Sorry.

No, I'm sure you don't. Private property (IE a home) you can decide not to admit whoever you like based on whatever criteria you like, but a business is not simply private property. A business is subject to all kinds of regulation from taxes to employment law, to discrimination law and beyond. All this regulation is designed to prevent or at least limit abuse. Who knew? I guess you and Ronnie. A little trip into the history books on labor laws and the like would enlighten you as to why these things were introduced. Mind you, if you really want to have children scampering about in factories again, we could get rid of regulation. Sounds like a sound business plan to me, not you?

Edited May 21, 2011 by The Truth™