Interesting and also sad. I saw max 10 people being arrested and while that makes it an official protest I don't think it will rank very high. You know you've arrived when they have to break out the Greyhound paddy wagons.

It's not a strawman argument, it's a fact; no argument needed. And I didn't say that all whites or even a majority are racists. I do think that most Americans of any color are apathetic, and would rather watch (and catch on phone video) a person suffering distress, than help. Apathy is all you need, not outright hostility, but today there is plenty of both.

Sure, you and I can make the distinction between reasonable public and private services. But what about these state politicians who are passing birther bills (various states), trying to privatize their health care systems (LA), and trying to nullify federal laws they don't like (various states). Not to mention the tea-idiots in Washington. I don't trust these fools to get those nuances, and I thank god every day that the federalists won out way-back-when. Because as much as some of these people say the federal government is too big and intrusive, they don't care if at the state/local level, things are run by fiat.

Since they don't get nuance, I get very nervous when on one hand, some politicians want everything privatized, then others say that private entities can serve who they want. A nice one-two punch.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
Even in 2011 you can walk into a restaurant or public establishment and not get served due to race.
With the number of racist kooks that have come out of the woodwork since Obama's election, it's not hard to believe that given the opportunity, a segregationist belt could emerge in this country again.
I think many libertarians don't care about that because, since it is a white majority country and most libertarians are white, they won't have to live with the negative consequences of a libertarian policy that removed anti-segregationist regulation. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.


I'm talking about segregation in terms of public services and places, not refusal of private services. Think more Rosa Parks and the segregated school systems from the 50s and 60s. I think the majority of people believe that segregation is bad, so you won't see it among most private companies.
So, it is hard to believe that a "segregationist belt" would emerge if given the opportunity. And it's a copout to say that the majority of people in any party are white, because the US population is so. Means nothing and it's a straw man argument. I could say that the majority of Democrats are white, but that's just statistical numbers.
Also, just because you're white doesn't make you a racist.

>> ^longde:

Even in 2011 you can walk into a restaurant or public establishment and not get served due to race.
With the number of racist kooks that have come out of the woodwork since Obama's election, it's not hard to believe that given the opportunity, a segregationist belt could emerge in this country again.
I think many libertarians don't care about that because, since it is a white majority country and most libertarians are white, they won't have to live with the negative consequences of a libertarian policy that removed anti-segregationist regulation. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.



I'm talking about segregation in terms of public services and places, not refusal of private services. Think more Rosa Parks and the segregated school systems from the 50s and 60s. I think the majority of people believe that segregation is bad, so you won't see it among most private companies.

So, it is hard to believe that a "segregationist belt" would emerge if given the opportunity. And it's a copout to say that the majority of people in any party are white, because the US population is so. Means nothing and it's a straw man argument. I could say that the majority of Democrats are white, but that's just statistical numbers.

Also, just because you're white doesn't make you a racist.

Even in 2011 you can walk into a restaurant or public establishment and not get served due to race.

With the number of racist kooks that have come out of the woodwork since Obama's election, it's not hard to believe that given the opportunity, a segregationist belt could emerge in this country again.

I think many libertarians don't care about that because, since it is a white majority country and most libertarians are white, they won't have to live with the negative consequences of a libertarian policy that removed anti-segregationist regulation. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^longde:
I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.

>> ^longde:

I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.


That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.

I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

@MarineGunrock

I'm a frequent flyer and as much as I might agree with you being against the scans, I am not against getting patted down/searched before I enter an airplane.

Would you say the same fucking thing about taking the damn Greyhound?

A bus's manufacturing cost doesn't range from $32-$205 million.

What happens when three malls all get blown up at the same time, and they decide to install scanners there?

Certain high-risk schools have mandatory metal detectors, would you be against those as well? If a mall/area has a history of attacks or crime, I would not be surprised if they implemented certain security methods to deter them from happening over and over again.

BUT, from what I can remember, the TSA has only been a hinderence on my travel experience, and as I can only quote anecdotal evidence, I cannot think of anything the TSA has done that has been a positive influence to either travel OR safety, unless we're just talking about the illusion of safety. I would love for someone to pull up statistics on the TSA and show hard numbers on whether or not these methods are effective or not instead of conjecture and "OMG, BUT, TERRORISTS."

I'd also like to add your actual poll choices suck

Oh, yeah. I meant to say something about butt plug bombs. If I go through the scanner with a condom full of explosives in my ass, the scanner won't pick it up. TSA goons aren't trained to read body language, so I'll EASILY be able to get it through. Then what? Mandatory cavity searches? No, motherfuckers. Flying is NOT a privilege. Would you say the same fucking thing about taking the damn Greyhound? That riding a bus is a privilege? What happens when three malls all get blown up at the same time, and they decide to install scanners there? Are you going to say that going to the mall is now a privilege?

FFS, people.

>> ^NetRunner:
That was basically my question to you. I gave an example where the implicit social expectations, and legal expectations were completely different, despite both being privately owned.

So it's the old "It's the law!" argument, I see. Your reasoning for making the comment "privately owned public property" is because the laws are already in place that distinguish commercial from residential, and therefore there's a legal expectation. Yes, because it's the law. Much like the war on drugs already sets a legal expectation.

Your social expectations you mention had to do with a business opening their doors to the public where a private home owner wouldn't. That's an absurd distinction. First, in a business, it's not open to the public, it's open for customers. They may permit them to browse their goods, but sometimes businesses have requirements before you enter such as a dress code or admission fee. And also locking your doors at night "constrains freedom", right? I mean, doesn't the black customer have a right to come into the white storeowner's shop?!

Your distinction here between legal and social expectations contrast what you say later: 'It's about taking away your "freedom" to put a blanket ban on people on the basis of race, group, or class.' Here again I've argued private land owners should have that right, even if I think it's awful. But Democrats want to argue a moral yarn about private property isn't private because of some social or legal expectation. But when you show how private companies need to limit private spaces (bathrooms, admission entry, dress code, etc.), the Democrats then have to play verbal hopscotch to ensure they take into account how an actual business needs to run. It's lame. Which brings me to the next response...

>> ^NetRunner:
I gave an example where the line between public and private is blurry, you gave one where it is less so. I said a couple posts back that I believe there's a spectrum of ownership. Some objects, when owned, are clearly close to the libertarian ideal in terms of the benefits of ownership.

But who decides? This is another Democratic fallacy. You guys want a Utopia and want to meddle in all aspects of human life, but you're never practical about it. Your rules are more complicated than mapping the genome.

>> ^NetRunner:
I mean, that's the argument you're making here. On a Metro bus, discrimination is morally wrong (why?), but on a Greyhound bus, discrimination is the business owner's moral right, and should be enforced by the police if uppity negroes get it into their heads that they're people too.

Here again the Democrats believe the civil rights movement boiled down to a resistance against private business owners. Segregation was a much larger issue in America than that. Blacks were treated differently in armed forces, they weren't allowed to hold government jobs like policeman and firefighters, they were forced to go to substandard segregated public schools, and the corrupt justice system wouldn't give them a fair trial.

But that won't stop the Democrats from blaming private business for the civil rights movement. Damn history when you have political opinion.

We should'nt require a civil rights act in a free society, but the pressures of racism in a community government proved to embolden the democratic voice of the people much like the gays in California were recently silenced because of your precious democracy.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, but why are you making a distinction in ownership between residential and commercial property? Why can't it just be property that's owned and therefore simply private?

That was basically my question to you. I gave an example where the implicit social expectations, and legal expectations were completely different, despite both being privately owned.

What is the basis for your argument that they should be considered the same? Do you think those social and legal conventions should change to reflect that sameness?
>> ^blankfist:
When you buy a good, it becomes your property and you own it. If you purchase groceries, do you believe you have sole ownership of it? Or should that also be considered privately owned public food and therefore not really owned by you? See? It's doublespeak.

I gave an example where the line between public and private is blurry, you gave one where it is less so. I said a couple posts back that I believe there's a spectrum of ownership. Some objects, when owned, are clearly close to the libertarian ideal in terms of the benefits of ownership.

But let's go with specific object ownership for a second. Let's say you buy a cucumber, and I come up and stab it with a needle, should the penalty be the same as if I'd done the same thing to your arm? I mean, in both cases I'm damaging your property, but the cucumber will never heal, whereas your arm will, probably very quickly.

In either case, the monetary value of the damages done are trivial.

Should the police treat assaults on property the same as assault on people's bodies? If so, why? If not, why not?
>> ^blankfist:
That isn't aggression. And it certainly isn't constraining freedom. If the local grocery store doesn't want me as a customer, then I have the choice to go elsewhere.

Then the cartoons are totally valid portrayals of the fucked up things libertarians believe. So Rosa Parks should have made sure to check if it was a private or public bus before getting mad about being asked to move to the back of it?

I mean, that's the argument you're making here. On a Metro bus, discrimination is morally wrong (why?), but on a Greyhound bus, discrimination is the business owner's moral right, and should be enforced by the police if uppity negroes get it into their heads that they're people too.

This is the basic problem -- libertarians don't believe that "Civil Rights" are or should be rights.
>> ^blankfist:
He has limited my options, but so do places I cannot afford to eat at. Or what about private airports? Shit, why can't I walk on the tarmac of the Santa Monica Airport?! That's constraining my freedom, right?! Sigh.

Well, the Civil Rights Act doesn't forbid you "discriminating" for those reasons. You can still make service conditional on payment (or not), and you can still mark off "Employees only" sections of privately-owned public areas. Signs that say "No shirt, no shoes, no service" are okay. So is kicking someone out for being a jerk to you, or even for taking too long to order, Soup Nazi style.

It's about taking away your "freedom" to put a blanket ban on people on the basis of race, group, or class, and giving people who've been subjected to that kind of discrimination legal means of recourse.

As someone who went to a small school I can fully believe that no one told her. I was a lone punk kid in a school that had a greyhound superimposed over a rebel flag for it's school symbol, and this was in Ohio, and I had never gotten so much shit as my two horrible years there. And yes, the best revenge is living a good life, that and moving away...
>> ^imstellar28:

whats hard to believe is this girl doesn't seem to have even a single friend - or even a single person who would feel guilty enough to let her in on the secret - even anonymously, at the entire school (unless the school is really small or something).

>> ^rottenseed:
Is there really an eternal battle? I didn't know about Italian Greyhounds until I read comments on this thread. I know about wippets because my family owned several generations.
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^choggie:
^ was wondering about that mutated chihuahua....Wrong head for Italian Greyhound....unless their heads shrink as they grow, maybe it's a cross..Chihuahua/Whippet??

here we go. the eternal battle of determining if a given dog is an Italian greyhound or a whippet
i think there was less blood shed during the holy crusades than arguing italian greyhound vs whippet.

not "battle" but i've seen many threads on iggy/whippy forums arguing if a given dog is a whippet or an italian greyhound..especially if a given dog is in between of either breed's specs.

i love iggies. i think they are one of the best apartment breeds one can have.

Is there really an eternal battle? I didn't know about Italian Greyhounds until I read comments on this thread. I know about wippets because my family owned several generations.

>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^choggie:
^ was wondering about that mutated chihuahua....Wrong head for Italian Greyhound....unless their heads shrink as they grow, maybe it's a cross..Chihuahua/Whippet??

here we go. the eternal battle of determining if a given dog is an Italian greyhound or a whippet
i think there was less blood shed during the holy crusades than arguing italian greyhound vs whippet.

>> ^choggie:
^ was wondering about that mutated chihuahua....Wrong head for Italian Greyhound....unless their heads shrink as they grow, maybe it's a cross..Chihuahua/Whippet??


here we go. the eternal battle of determining if a given dog is an Italian greyhound or a whippet

i think there was less blood shed during the holy crusades than arguing italian greyhound vs whippet.

^ was wondering about that mutated chihuahua....Wrong head for Italian Greyhound....unless their heads shrink as they grow, maybe it's a cross..Chihuahua/Whippet??