Abraham Lincoln - Right or Wrong?

Gipper · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
And as long as your property is NOT open to the general public and makes NO use of any taxpayer funding or governmental support - you might have an argument.

You say that as an excuse to make a blanket statement about how EVERYTHING has taxpayer funding and/or government support - akin to Obama saying "you didn't build that".

Leave it to a liberal to take credit for another's work.

Sherman123 · Mar 9, 2013

Henrin said:
I'm asking you where it gave rise to people being seen as equal and created a general acceptance of those people. Go ahead and find an example of that. Forcing people to behave in the way you want and them doing so on their own free will are not equal.

The Jews in Germany. Moreover as usual the apologist misses the point. The Radical Republicans rightly did not care if reactionary Southern whites quickly acclimated to blacks being free and equal in their midst. Their goal was long term, and entirely focused on the morality of redressing horrendous wrongs and the cost was worth paying. The other great folly of reconstruction was not more firmly committing to land reform and allocation which would have given blacks a stake in their communities and an economic tool for social betterment.

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

Sherman123 said:
The Jews in Germany. Moreover as usual the apologist misses the point.

Prove to me that the acceptance of Jews in Germany has anything to do with legal force. Please, go right ahead.

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

Sherman123 said:
That isn't true at all, lol. The Civil War was actually marked by very very few civilian casualties which has been rather intriguing to historians. It is why massacres like Fort Pillow have garnered so much attention, because they were so rare. The exception to all of this is of course Missouri where an internecine partisan communal war claimed several hundred to several thousand lives on both sides. But no, rampant slaughter and rape did not occur.

WTF? Are you actually claiming there was no campaign to go across the south doing what I said? Really?

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

Henrin said:
No business is open to the public, but to who the owner wants in. Stop believing in myths, hay.

As for public money, no, that does not make private property somehow public property. The rights of the owner are unchanged.

Really now!!!!!! That is a shock. So when somebody puts an ad in the paper advertising their store - they are not open to the public? Does the term PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS mean anything to you?

The public and their taxpayer money helped make that business possible. Unless the guy is on his own private island which was totally paid for by himself, the public and public money helped make that business possible.

You badly need to educate yourself on this issue to avoid making such gaffes about the way things are in the REAL USA and not some right wing fantasy version that is desired.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adaqa2.html

Public Accommodations

Q. What are public accommodations?
A. A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.

and this will give you the law in the real USA

http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
OOO(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
OOO(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
OOO(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
Really now!!!!!! That is a shock. So when somebody puts an ad in the paper advertising their store - they are not open to the public?

That doesn't mean they don't have any rules on acceptance to their property. It means they are trying to get word out there about their business.

The public and their taxpayer money helped make that business possible. Unless the guy is on his own private island which was totally paid for by himself, the public and public money helped make that business possible.

That has nothing to do with who OWNS the property. Even if you helped make his business what it is today that does NOT make you the owner of such property nor does it allow you to trump his word. There is a such thing as private property, hay.

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

Gipper said:
You say that as an excuse to make a blanket statement about how EVERYTHING has taxpayer funding and/or government support - akin to Obama saying "you didn't build that".

Leave it to a liberal to take credit for another's work.

Nobody is taking credit of anothers work. Unless of course you are referring to right wingers who want to ignore the contributions of the larger society as part of their success.

humbolt · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
Why do you think there is such a Grand Canyon sized gulf between the experts in History and Political Science who rate the Presidents in the various surveys and the right in America? And even then its only the grass roots right. Even the right leaning experts still pick Washington, Lincoln and FDR as great. So what is it about the right libertarians and some conservatives that they continue to stand out as outliers in this regard?

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not important to me. To me, this is similar to discussing who is the greatest ball player and such. I'm just grateful that we've been fortunate to have the right man in the job during our most serious times regardless of political affiliation.

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

Henrin said:
That doesn't mean they don't have any rules on acceptance to their property. It means they are trying to get word out there about their business.

That has nothing to do with who OWNS the property. Even if you helped make his business what it is today that does NOT make you the owner of such property nor does it allow you to trump his word. There is a such thing as private property, hay.

Nobody is saying the owner is not the owner. That is a strawman which has nothing to do with the law on public accommodations.

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

Thanks for quoting what our little talk was about, haymarket. :roll:

Next time it might serve you well to not end with a fallacy.

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
Nobody is saying the owner is not the owner. That is a strawman which has nothing to do with the law on public accommodations.

Actually it has everything to do with it. Look back on the what I said about ownership and relate it back to the topic.

You can not claim the property is open to the public and the owner has no ability to control access and then come back and say the ownership picture hasn't changed.

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

humbolt said:
It's not important to me. To me, this is similar to discussing who is the greatest ball player and such. I'm just grateful that we've been fortunate to have the right man in the job during our most serious times regardless of political affiliation.

I was once in a restaurant in a hotel where the Boston Celtics were staying on the road. In the table right behind me were several media people like Johnny Most, Tom Heinson, and Bob Ryan. Between all three of them, they had spent over a century in professional basketball and had seen more games than probably any other three people I could name.

They got around to what I soon found out was probably part 639 of a long going discussion on who was the greatest five players of all time. Now I do not remember who each defended that day, but I walked away with a profound respect for opinion that was based on experience, education, insight and knowledge and opinion based on god only knows what else.

My point was a simple one: when we look at polls of experts in the fields of American History and Political Science over the past seventy years, the same three men all rank as GREAT for their service as US Presidents. Even the Federalist Society sponsored polls still picked Washington, Lincoln and FDR as GREAT. And the Federalist Society is a libertarian based group.

However, libertarians and some on the right have made hating Lincoln and FDR one of their cause celebres.

So the question is why? What are they looking at or what are they ignoring that even libertarian experts are honest enough to acknowledge?

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
Nobody is taking credit of anothers work. Unless of course you are referring to right wingers who want to ignore the contributions of the larger society as part of their success.

That is exactly what you are doing and then using it towards claims of ownership and control.

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

Henrin said:
Actually it has everything to do with it. Look back on the what I said about ownership and relate it back to the topic.

You can not claim the property is open to the public and the owner has no ability to control access and then come back and say the ownership picture hasn't changed.

I do not have to claim anything. I gave you the law on the matter which says so.

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

Henrin said:
That is exactly what you are doing and then using it towards claims of ownership and control.

How so? I give credit to ALL who made that business possible.

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
I do not have to claim anything. I gave you the law on the matter which says so.

So you agree that the ownership picture has changed? Good job at falling right where I want you too, haymarket.

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

Henrin said:
Thanks for quoting what our little talk was about, haymarket. :roll:

Next time it might serve you well to not end with a fallacy.

In your best drive-by style you accuse me of using a fallacy but are impotent to point it out.

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

Henrin said:
So you agree that the ownership picture has changed? Good job at falling right where I want you too, haymarket.

I have no idea under heaven and hell what this "ownership picture" is that you are going on about?

Is "ownership picture" something I need to speak libertarianese to understand? Is it the latest catch phrase disseminated by ideological missionaries from the Von Mises Institute?

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
How so? I give credit to ALL who made that business possible.

The business is possible due to the work of the owner. The amount of prosperity it might have could be influenced by roads, but they did not make the business possible. The roads are really no different than his employees that assist his business in exchange for money. They did not make it possible, but they did assist in it's growth.

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
I have no idea under heaven and hell what this "ownership picture" is that you are going on about?

Read what I said about ownership again, please. If someone is else is controlling access to your property and not you what do you think that means? This isn't hard to follow, haymarket.

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
In your best drive-by style you accuse me of using a fallacy but are impotent to point it out.

You were falling back on the law as your argument. That is a fallacy.

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

Henrin said:
Read what I said about ownership again, please. If someone is else is controlling access to your property and not you what do you think that means? This isn't hard to follow, haymarket.

What you said is comepletely and totally irrelevant to the real life conditions int he the USA that we all live under of our own free will.

haymarket · Mar 9, 2013

Henrin said:
You were falling back on the law as your argument. That is a fallacy.

I am simply explaining what a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION is and using the reality of the law to show you that your belief is based on something other than reality.

That is not a fallacy. that is reality.

We as a nation have defined what we believe is a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. And what we as a people have defined goes completely against your own individual belief. It matters not to me if you think that is "right" or not. It is what it is and what it is is reality in 2013 America.

You are in some other reality where the rights that come with ownership are other than they are in the USA.

So get used to it if you stay here.

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
I am simply explaining what a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION is and using the reality of the law to show you that your belief is based on something other than reality.

That is not a fallacy. that is reality.

No, you were using it as a way to win the argument and treat the law as not needing to be defended as if it is always right. That is a fallacy.

Henrin · Mar 9, 2013

haymarket said:
What you said is comepletely and totally irrelevant to the real life conditions int he the USA that we all live under of our own free will.

More fallacies by haymarket. You do not win this kind of debate by saying "this is how it is and therefore I'm right."