Arby's apologizes after officer is denied service for being a cop

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-05-2015, 01:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You live in a complete fantasy land where right wing speaking points are reality instead of rhetoric.

Best description of ol' Jake I've seen yet. I really don't think the guy gets out much. Either that or he's an outright troll.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-05-2015, 04:11 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yes, I do know what it means.  It's the difference between socialistic private property rights and libertrarian private property rights.

Educate yourself.

"Libertarian" in your case should always be in quotes, since the ideal of "libertarian" that you describe is literally the opposite of what the word always meant prior to being hijacked by a number of American pro-corporate thinktanks.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 05:26 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: "Libertarian" in your case should always be in quotes, since the ideal of "libertarian" that you describe is literally the opposite of what the word always meant prior to being hijacked by a number of American pro-corporate thinktanks.

Spare me the daily kos definition of libertarian. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 05:19 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Best description of ol' Jake I've seen yet. I really don't think the guy gets out much. Either that or he's an outright troll.

Yeah, now I'm a troll.

Now that we have the bumper sticker slogan, faux news watching, and troll accusation out of the way, I guess you're out of comebacks.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-05-2015, 05:27 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Spare me the daily kos definition of libertarian. 

How about the definition that existed since the Enlightenment? Or do you need quick lesson in what that was first?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 05:31 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: How about the definition that existed since the Enlightenment?  Or do you need quick lesson in what that was first?

No, I don't need lessons from someone that thinks Sanders is a legitimate Presidential candidate. 

I'm certainly well-aware of his opinion on private property rights.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-05-2015, 05:28 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah, now I'm a troll.

Now that we have the bumper sticker slogan, faux news watching, and troll accusation out of the way, I guess you're out of comebacks.

I think you *may* be a troll, mainly because the proudly ignorant, vain, self-professed self-reliant titan of industry character is a great favorite of Internet trolls. But, you may very well truly be as delusional and nutty as everything you say implies. Poe's law and all that.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-05-2015, 05:35 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, I don't need lessons

Ah. So you have no clue what you're talking about re: the word "libertarian", and have zero interest in learning, either. I'm definitely noticing a pattern.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2015, 04:11 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yes, I do know what it means.  It's the difference between socialistic private property rights and libertrarian private property rights.

Someday you will actually have to explain something for anyone here to think you know anything.

So I'll ask again.  What does "private property rights" have to do with a business owner being able tovitimize anyone he wants any way he wants.  You support the right of businesses to vitimize people through discrimination, so why would I not assume that you alsio agree they should be able to do anything else they want to victimize people.

Since you only spew platitudes instead of insightful commentary it is really hard to understand what you mean.

Where do you draw the line regarding what "private property rights" should allow a business owner to do?  I really have no idea what your position is on this.  You act like discrimination is some super special privilege that should be held in higher regard than the other things that business owners have been stopped from doing to victimize people.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 05:38 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I think you *may* be a troll, mainly because the proudly ignorant, vain, self-professed self-reliant titan of industry character is a great favorite of Internet trolls. But, you may very well truly be as delusional and nutty as everything you say implies. Poe's law and all that.

Nope.  I mean everything I say here. 

Fortunately my level of pride and self-respect doesn't require the approval of people on an anonymous message board.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 10:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Someday you will actually have to explain something for anyone here to think you know anything.

So I'll ask again.  What does "private property rights" have to do with a business owner being able tovitimize anyone he wants any way he wants.  You support the right of businesses to vitimize people through discrimination, so why would I not assume that you alsio agree they should be able to do anything else they want to victimize people.

Since you only spew platitudes instead of insightful commentary it is really hard to understand what you mean.

Where do you draw the line regarding what "private property rights" should allow a business owner to do?  I really have no idea what your position is on this.  You act like discrimination is some super special privilege that should be held in higher regard than the other things that business owners have been stopped from doing to victimize people.

If I own a hamburger stand....we'll call it Jake's Hamburger Stand just for the purpose of discussion, it's my property, correct?  That would include the contents on that property, correct?  So what gives a consumer, with the exception of your discrimination laws, more of a right to be on my property as well as more of a right to purchase from me than I have to not allow them on my property or refuse to sell them my product?

You seem to believe that the consumer is the only side of the equation deserving of protection and freedom.  I fail to understand how that's logical or anything close to freedom. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-06-2015, 01:15 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: If I own a hamburger stand....we'll call it Jake's Hamburger Stand just for the purpose of discussion, it's my property, correct?  That would include the contents on that property, correct?  So what gives a consumer, with the exception of your discrimination laws, more of a right to be on my property as well as more of a right to purchase from me than I have to not allow them on my property or refuse to sell them my product?

You seem to believe that the consumer is the only side of the equation deserving of protection and freedom.  I fail to understand how that's logical or anything close to freedom. 

An owner can and does refuse service to customers for a whole variety of reasons  You just can't refuse service based on race, sex, or religion.  Now do owners refuse service based on any one of those three reasons, but tell the customer something else?  I'm sure it happens, I certainly don't agree with it, but I'm sure it happens. But if you get caught, you'll likely be prosecuted (and rightly so) for violating people civil rights.  So you do have the right to refuse people service for many reasons.  However you just don't have the right to be a racist asshole.

Hope that helps.

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 01:15 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You seem to believe that the consumer is the only side of the equation deserving of protection and freedom.  I fail to understand how that's logical or anything close to freedom. 

The consumer is the only person who can be a victim of discrimination.

And since every person, even business owners, are also consumers then EVERYONE is getting equal treatment.  No one side is getting any special benefits.  All business owners are treated the same and all consumers are treated the same.

And I have asked you twice, but you have not answered.  Do you consider the Jim Crow South to be more "free" and stand for "liberty and justice for all" more than the system we operate under now?  Was South Africa more "free" under apartheid than it is today?

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-06-2015, 01:07 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Nope.  I mean everything I say here. 

Fortunately my level of pride and self-respect doesn't require the approval of people on an anonymous message board.  

Oh I beg to differ. Anybody who posts a meandering, lengthy description of their personal successes that completely defies belief on an anonymous message board is highly invested in the opinions of t.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 01:56 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Oh I beg to differ. Anybody who posts a meandering, lengthy description of their personal successes that completely defies belief on an anonymous message board is highly invested in the opinions of t.

It's beyond belief that someone on a message board graduated college and has a job and a family?

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-06-2015, 09:25 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: It's beyond belief that someone on a message board graduated college and has a job and a family?

Ah, the beauty of selective paraphrasing. You can keep all the totally believable parts and do away with the ridiculous ones!

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 09:56 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Ah, the beauty of selective paraphrasing. You can keep all the totally believable parts and do away with the ridiculous ones!

What was ridiculous, specifically?

[*michaelsean*]

 

(09-05-2015, 05:31 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: How about the definition that existed since the Enlightenment?  Or do you need quick lesson in what that was first?

There is no single definition from the Enlightenment.  There were several different philosophies which shared some commonality.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 11:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote:  

There is no single definition from the Enlightenment.  There were several different philosophies which shared some commonality.

It is true that it didn't take long for certain private property fetishists to adopt the phrase and completely change its meaning, but most of the world ignored it then and ignores it now, in much the same way it ignores North Korea when it calls its self a "democratic republic". "Libertarian" was most typically associated with some form or other of socialism, and outside of the U.S., that is still the case.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-08-2015, 02:29 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It is true that it didn't take long for certain private property fetishists to adopt the phrase and completely change its meaning, but most of the world ignored it then and ignores it now, in much the same way it ignores North Korea when it calls its self a "democratic republic". "Libertarian" was most typically associated with some form or other of socialism, and outside of the U.S., that is still the case.

So kind of like how the SCOTUS and liberals believe that the phrase "promote the general welfare" means giving people free stuff?