In Rand Paul's world, does a private doctor get to refuse treatment to a black man?

So you are saying that you are anti constitution... Well, at least you are honest about that much.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"The fact is that (true) liberal/libertarian thinking was borne out of the dismemberment of such power structures (the American and French revolutions)."

Liberty and libertarianism for all Americans?

Not even in the framers and founders and revolutionary colonists wildest imagination...
More...
 
Actually Rand said that racism is not acceptable under any circumstances. Rand's position is that is that it's not the government's place to tell people what to think or dictate who people must do business with.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

It can be the black doctor practicing racism, which is wrong.

However, the topic is Rand's position that racism is okay if it is not institutional racism...

Thanks for eliminating the strawman excursions...
More...
 
Quote from phenomena:

No, socialism is the ideological descendant of feudalism. Instead of the divine right of kings, you guys endorse the divine right of the glorious state. Much like feudalism, you guys have a huge bloated government with bureaucrats and politicians controlling the production and distribution of resources instead of a king and nobles. It's much the same though.

The fact is that (true) liberal/libertarian thinking was borne out of the dismemberment of such power structures (the American and French revolutions).
More...

Nah, the American and French revolutions are the birth of classical LIBERALISM.

Thanks again for playing.
 
Do you remember the famous saying of the Musketeers?

"All for one, and one for all."

The Libertarians creed?

"All for me, and me for me."

Quote from RCG Trader:

Nah, the American and French revolutions are the birth of classical LIBERALISM.

Thanks again for playing.
More...
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

What Rand, and some others seem to miss is that, there is not a single piece of legislation( particularly when it comes to ethnics), that has not needed to be enforced at the point of a bayonet, either fiscal or actual.

Government HAD to step in because most of the people either lacked the will or the courage to change for the better, as well as more than a few who didn't think that civil rights was a better thing.

There are still people today, with a sitting African-American president who are talking about people without property being disenfranchised.

The descendants of the Confederacy just never got over that loss. Understandable considering they were winning most of the time, but the facts are that they lost, and the South will not rise again.
More...

And for phenomena and some others I trot the elephant out again.

No one will touch this, will they:D
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Do you remember the famous saying of the Musketeers?

"All for one, and one for all."

The Libertarians creed?

"All for me, and me for me."
More...

Yep, I do.

It aint their fault 777, too much Limbaugh:)
 
You know, their fictional hero is Jabba the Limbaugh...the ultimate narcissist.

<img src=http://www.rackjite.com/graphics/rushjabba.jpg>

Quote from RCG Trader:

Yep, I do.

It aint their fault 777, too much Limbaugh:)
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You think I am wrong?

No problem...

Go ahead, try that scenario...see what happens...
More...

Or if you know what you are talking about, simply answer the question.

Which title of the Civil Rights Act would your scenario fall under? And why?

Saying, "go ahead see what happens" is useless grandstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top