>> ^dystopianfuturetoday: I'm never going to convince blanco...


I'll give it a shot.

blankfist, you mentioned that zoning laws are what prevent McDonalds from setting up their corporate headquarters in a residential neighborhood. And you mentioned that as an absurdly extreme example of people doing whatever they want with their (land) property. I'm glad that you recognize it as absurd, because that implies that you also acknowledge that there are in fact sound legal limits to what a property owner may or may not do with their property, like storing nuclear waste in one's basement, or failing to cut one's grass and generally keep one's home from looking abandoned (blight). What is the legal basis for such laws if property rights are supposed to be absolute? The short answer is that they are not absolute - there are all sorts of restrictions on property rights, especially in the case of land.

But even if, for the sake of argument, I allow that property rights were absolute in the sense I think you're intending, one of the main legal bases for zoning restritctions is because it would infringe on the property rights of others, by lowering the value of their property. That same argument can be (and often is) applied to businesses. That's why strip clubs and porn shops can't be located wherever their owners would like. There are more mundane examples as well, such as the restriction on putting a big box store in the middle of a light commerical/residential mixed area. The exact same legal reasoning can be applied to the practice of discrimination of customers. By allowing a grocery store owner to hang a "whites only" sign in his window, it damages any neighboring businesses, and reduces neighboring property values in general.

That legal argument may ignore the morally repugnant aspects of discrimination, and would probably never be used in practice - it was just for the sake of argument given the premise of nearly absolute property rights. The more appropriate answer is what I mentioned above - property rights aren't even close to absolute, and the property rights of business owner's are routinely more restricted than those of private residences. The reason for that is because despite an ever growing number of Supreme Court decisions giving more and more individual rights to businesses, we're still not quite to the point of corporate citizenship.

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist is a shopping mall "public" or "private"? Is a grocery store "public" or "private"?


Did you seriously just ask me that?

Are you saying in a free market, some switch would turn on in the minds of evil grocery store owners and they'd stop selling to certain people in the hopes these people would starve to death? I don't get what you're driving at. Yes, grocery stores and shopping malls are private. I don't believe you're asking me that because you don't know the answer.

Maybe the customers weren't really listening or paying attention. Maybe they don't react to (any) injustice by walking up in the offending party's face and start screaming bloody murder, or they just don't want to get involved in an ongoing argument, regardless of what it's about. Maybe they went and called the store owners after they left, and/or vowed never to shop there again.

The actors preformed a script about racism, but that doesn't by any means automatically lead to the conclusion that the customers were harboring racist views when passing by without standing up for the lady, or abstained from interfering specifically because it was a racist situation. It might show complacency towards strangers or blind trust in the authority of the security guards, but that's not synonymous with racism. The conclusion was something the ABC crew decided on all by themselves.

First off, I like Ron Paul. Even though I disagree with most everything he says, he is a principled libertarian - and I respect that.

Here though, his argument makes so sense. His analogy of the store owner is way off base. Its as if the store owner went out and gave people money, and in return, they spent TWICE as much in his store. Its not like the government is subsidizing the whole cost of these cars. The automakers ARE making a profit on this.

The Cash for Clunkers program is one of the best stimulus bills to be passed. It stimulates the economy AND helps the environment.

From Wikipedia:

As Nasty As They Wanna Be and "Me So Horny" controversy
The group released their album As Nasty As They Wanna Be in 1989, which also became the group's most successful album, largely because of the single "Me So Horny", which was popular in spite of little radio rotation, thanks, in part, to prevalent play on MTV. The song was based on a quote from a Vietnamese prostitute in Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and took a sample from Mass Production's Firecracker. This album was also produced by Mr. Mixx.
The American Family Association did not think the presence of a "Parental Advisory" sticker was enough to adequately warn listeners of what was inside the case. Jack Thompson, a lawyer affiliated with the AFA, met with Florida Governor Bob Martinez and convinced him to look into the album to see if it met the legal classification of obscene. In 1990 action was taken at the local level and Nick Navarro, Broward County sheriff received a ruling from judge Mel Grossman that probable cause for obscenity violations existed.[2]
Navarro warned record store owners that selling the album may be prosecutable. 2 Live Crew then filed a suit against Navarro. That June, Judge Jose Gonzalez ruled against the album, declaring it obscene and illegal to sell. Charles Freeman, a local retailer, was arrested two days later, after selling a copy to an undercover police officer. This was followed by the arrest of three members of 2 Live Crew after they performed some material from the album at a live performance held at the Futura Night Club in Hollywood Florida. They were acquitted soon after. In 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the obscenity ruling from Jose Gonzales, and the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear Broward County's appeal. A notable feature of the case was the distinguished literary critic and now Harvard University professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. as an expert witness on behalf of the defendants. He argued that the material that the county alleged was profane, actually had important roots in African-American vernacular, games, and literary traditions and should be protected.
As a result of the controversy, As Nasty As They Wanna Be sold over two million copies. It peaked at #29 on The Billboard 200 and #3 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart. A few other retailers were later arrested for selling it as well. Later hard rock band Van Halen sued over an uncleared sample of their song "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love" in the 2 Live Crew Song "The Fuck Shop". The publicity then continued when George Lucas, owner of the Star Wars universe, successfully sued Campbell for appropriating the name "Skywalker" for his record label, Luke Skywalker Records. Campbell changed his stage name to Luke (and changed the record label's name to Luke Records) and the group released an extremely political follow up album, Banned in the USA after obtaining permission to use an interpolation of Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A. 2 Live Crew paraphernalia with the Luke Skywalker or Skywalker logos are usually sought after as collector's items.

>> ^gtjwkq:
People have a right to defend themselves. When guns are involved, you usually need guns for that.


It sucks that they were victimized and all but nobody was killed. If they all had guns I think it's fair to say the chances of somebody dying would go up.... unless maybe the store owners were ex-military or something and knew how to behave in a gunfight.

>> ^quantumushroom:
1) Isn't it compassionate liberals that want shopkeeps disarmed and paying heavy taxes for 'destroying Mother Earth'? Where's the compassion for the unemployed when Obama's tax hikes are making jobs vanish faster than a box of donuts at a police station?
2) The store owner's delusions of a higher power tricked him into turning the other cheek! Insidious!
3) How much have Dawkins and Hitchens given to charity--in any form--from their book deals?


1) Isn't it moronic conservatives who started these economic troubles in the first place. Stop blaming Obama for Bush's idiocy.

2) I'm sure the intent of the title was to show that not all Muslims are terrorists and suicide bombers that need to be converted or killed, as many right wing Christians would have you believe. But altruism and compassion are not limited to the religious and are well explained by evolution.

3) Considering Richard Dawkins has his own charity, The Richard Dawkins Foundation, I would say quite a lot.

1) Isn't it compassionate liberals that want shopkeeps disarmed and paying heavy taxes for 'destroying Mother Earth'? Where's the compassion for the unemployed when Obama's tax hikes are making jobs vanish faster than a box of donuts at a police station?

2) The store owner's delusions of a higher power tricked him into turning the other cheek! Insidious!

3) How much have Dawkins and Hitchens given to charity--in any form--from their book deals?

You should. It's a great movie. Here are some other scenes:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Falling-Down-I-want-breakfast
http://www.videosift.com/video/Falling-Down-Nazi-store-owner-scene
http://www.videosift.com/video/Golf

Not sure why the 3rd one says "Golf". It should be "Street Problems".

>> ^Sagemind:
I've never seen this movie..., Maybe now I'll have to...

Thank you for your great comment! Finally someone who can see both sides of the issue!

The negative points that you brought up about their faith are true. They do go after "lost sheep" in a way that I understand must be annoying for members who leave. We do have to remember, which I think you do, that they believe that they are commanded by God to be his instruments in bringing souls to him. They honestly believe that the best thing for you is to come back, and their sincere desire to help makes them a little overexcited, perhaps.

What I find really interesting about anti-Mormon criticism is that people have major issues with Mormons claiming that their church is the "true church". Isn't it logical, though? If ANY religion believes that they teach the truth and nothing but the truth, aren't they claiming to be the only truth? Because anything that contradicts them would be lies, right? Mormons believe that other faiths teach truth, just not the WHOLE truth.

I think that it was definitely wrong for people to teach you that your friends wouldn't be able to play in Heaven with you. I know it sounds horrible to most people that in order to get to Heaven you have to become a Mormon, but again, I believe that issue is misunderstood, even by some Mormons. I read that book, Mormon Doctrine, by the way. They believe that certain ordinances that Jesus taught, like baptism, are neccesary for salvation. They also believe that the priesthood is neccesary for baptism. They further believe that the priesthood was lost from the earth after Jesus' death and after all of the remaining holders of the priesthood died, and that through Joseph Smith, the priesthood was restored to the Earth. Therefore, only Mormons have the authority to baptize, and so you have to become a church member to recieve the saving ordinance of baptism. So, again, people blow that way out of proportion. I don't think you do, though. I'm just using your comments as a springboard for things I've been dying to say to videosift people. Sorry. But thanks!

>> ^SDGundamX:
I was a Mormon for several years (lived in a rural area, was the closest church in town until I was about nine and a new Presbyterians church was built closer). I have to say I'm a bit confused at all the hate that's delivered towards them. Of all the churches I ever attended (and I attended lots as a kid), theirs had the most caring and active community I've ever seen. If you were sick, church members were there the same day with food and asking what they could do to help. They had lots of great family activities all year round, such as picnics and camping trips.
But what impressed me the most about the Mormon church is that they basically taught me the morals I hold true today. They didn't just teach the kids in Sunday school not to lie because "God says so." They explored the consequences of things like lying and stealing. We'd do role-plays where they'd make us think about the consequences our actions had on other people. Like, for instance, if you shoplifted a toy you really wanted, how would the toy store owner feel? How would he feed his family if people kept stealing the stuff in his shop? The fire-and-brimstone Christian churches I later attended never impressed me much with their Bible beating compared to this style of teaching.
This is not to say Mormons aren't without their flaws. In some ways, they do resemble a cult. When my family left, they hounded us for years trying to "save our souls" and get us to come back. They would just show up unannounced at our house or call at random hours. It was more annoying than anything else.
Another downside was the whole proselytizing thing--I distinctly remember being told as a child that if I wanted to be able to play with my friends in heaven that I'd have to convince them to become Mormons too. Otherwise I wouldn't see them there. To put that into perspective though, my Dad's priest told him the same thing about his Protestant friends back when he was a kid. The Mormon religion hasn't got a lock on the conversion market by any means.
All things considered, I find the Mormon religion to be relatively harmless. Yes, they believe in some odd things like the Book of Mormon, but at the end of the day, unlike a lot of self-proclaimed Christians, I found the Mormons to do more than just give lip service to their values and actually practice what they preach.

I was a Mormon for several years (lived in a rural area, was the closest church in town until I was about nine and a new Presbyterians church was built closer). I have to say I'm a bit confused at all the hate that's delivered towards them. Of all the churches I ever attended (and I attended lots as a kid), theirs had the most caring and active community I've ever seen. If you were sick, church members were there the same day with food and asking what they could do to help. They had lots of great family activities all year round, such as picnics and camping trips.

But what impressed me the most about the Mormon church is that they basically taught me the morals I hold true today. They didn't just teach the kids in Sunday school not to lie because "God says so." They explored the consequences of things like lying and stealing. We'd do role-plays where they'd make us think about the consequences our actions had on other people. Like, for instance, if you shoplifted a toy you really wanted, how would the toy store owner feel? How would he feed his family if people kept stealing the stuff in his shop? The fire-and-brimstone Christian churches I later attended never impressed me much with their Bible beating compared to this style of teaching.

This is not to say Mormons aren't without their flaws. In some ways, they do resemble a cult. When my family left, they hounded us for years trying to "save our souls" and get us to come back. They would just show up unannounced at our house or call at random hours. It was more annoying than anything else.

Another downside was the whole proselytizing thing--I distinctly remember being told as a child that if I wanted to be able to play with my friends in heaven that I'd have to convince them to become Mormons too. Otherwise I wouldn't see them there. To put that into perspective though, my Dad's priest told him the same thing about his Protestant friends back when he was a kid. The Mormon religion hasn't got a lock on the conversion market by any means.

All things considered, I find the Mormon religion to be relatively harmless. Yes, they believe in some odd things like the Book of Mormon, but at the end of the day, unlike a lot of self-proclaimed Christians, I found the Mormons to do more than just give lip service to their values and actually practice what they preach.

The first amendment could be considered to be dangerous too. I have a Korean friend who was recently talking about some band some time ago that made disparaging comments about Koreans during the riots in LA. She felt that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they did (stuff about killing the store owners or something). I'm certain that there are plenty of other people who feel the same way.

Well, fine then. Let's just get rid of all of these pesky amendments! Who needs them anymore?

No thanks. I may not hunt, I may not own a gun, but I'll purchase one if I have to to defend the rights guaranteed to us by the founders of this country who were greater and smarter men than most. I'll fight for the rights of people to be able to say what they want (other than libel and slander) whether I like what they say or not, and yes, one of those freedoms is the second amendment. To say that people say such things without giving reason means that you weren't listening. Guns have been tools for centuries now, just because you don't need one in modern suburbia doesn't mean other people don't. And because a government's military might be strong doesn't mean that a people should just lay down and take oppression AFTER peaceful protesting and diplomatic channels have been exhausted. If they had in the past, then we never would have gained our freedoms from England in the first place. I don't know what's so difficult to see about that.

I know, discussion's over and I'm probably rehashing. Day late and a dollar short for me.

My friend went to this store in houston called the "funky onion gift shop" and he bought one of these chickens.

But the store had a HUUUGE version of it that was about 3 feet tall and costs $100. The store owner showed it to us and gave it a big hug, and it was LOUD and lasted a really long time.

addendum: I also keep up on my comic subscriptions/addictions to Warren Ellis' Fell & Desolation Jones, Ben Templesmith's Wormwood: Gentleman Corpse & Eric Shanower's Age of Bronze.... whenever the hell they decide to publish new ones. That's the problem with the indie comics, they are not nearly as regular as the high-gloss mass produced ones like Marvel... and speaking of Marvel, did anyone else fall for their 'Civil War' pyramid scheme? I did, but only so far as to buy the core seven issues... my dealer, I mean comic book store owner, tried to push all the side stories on me, but I can only imagine what that would have cost!