The government regulators were corrupted by business interests. The regulators in question were so out of step with the real world, they became infamous for having sex parties etc…
They are NOT representative of government regulators.
If a lunch counter or any other restaurant that you can muster equals inequality, then…fuck!
Private businesses are under no obligation to serve…anyone…
Frankly, I don’t care if you take me seriously or not. But yes, Liberals often make things worse when they use the arm of government to solve the ills of society. It’s not that liberals are racist - they’re just ideologues who think every problem has a government solution waiting to be applied.
In my opinion, Liberals rarely think about secondary and tertiary effects of the policies they propose. They ignore the law of unintended consequences. They imbue government with traits they wish it had, and ignore the evidence which suggests government is a lot more corrupt and/or incompetent than they’d like it to be.
But most of all, Liberals distrust the market, because it’s not predictable or controllable. They like to plan society, not just let it happen. They think they know what’s best for people, and they’re so sure of themselves they’re willing to use guns to force people to do what they think is right. They’re the people who believe that, come the revolution, they’ll be the ones with the clipboards telling people how to manage their affairs.
And in the end, powers beyond their control take over and pervert the things they supported. Liberals give government the power to regulate business, and government gets in bed with business and create entities above the law.
Liberals love great issues. They march on Washington demanding change. They focus on legislation like health care and get it passed. Once it’s law, they go on to the next crusade, leaving the government and the regulated industries to administer the great new programs. And over time, the special interests creep in and subvert the laws and twist them to their advantage. But by then, no one’s paying attention.
Right…There’s no racism among the ranks of blue collar Democrats and union members. None at all.
I’m sure that’s a big comfort to those new immigrants who don’t have a hope in hell of getting a nice cushy union job, but who are willing to do the same thing for $10/hr. They can just go screw themselves, eh?
Of course, if the wages were lower then more people could be employed, but so long as you got yours, who cares?
This is only true in a few cases. One being public works, because governments have a bottomless well of taxpayer money. Anywhere else, and those high wages translate into fewer jobs or higher prices for union-made goods, meaning everyone else gets to pick up the tab.
They weren’t True Scotsmen, in other words.
How about the regulators at Fanny and Freddie, who had no problem with what was going on in the financial system, and in fact actively encouraged it? Were they real regulators?
How about the government officials who let Mattel write the lead-in-toys act signed last year, which caused Mattel’s competitors to have to destroy over a hundred million dollars worth of used toys? Were they real government people?
How about the politicians who keep shilling for the big media companies and passing laws like the DMCA, despite widespread public opposition? Do they represent the true government?
How about farmers who manage to get sugar tariffs imposed to protect their crops? Are the politicians who gave that to them not real politicians?
I could go on all day. But liberals treat each one of these failures as a special case, not as an indictment of centralized power itself. But when a businessman does something crooked or stupid… Capitalism is to blame. All businesses need to be regulated more.
Businesses that serve the public have to be licensed. Licenses are regulatory tools. Nobody is using equality in the way you are. You’re only going in circles. It was funny at first, but now it’s starting to look sad.
Racism as an excuse to refuse service is not the same as denying service to customers without foot ware.
Your warped and twisted views of what constitute liberalism is quaint and outdated. It’s silly. it’s boring. It’s full of false stereotypes and bogus generalities.
You’re not serious about discussion. You’re only serious about making sophomoric comments about any opposing views and then labeling them as liberal. It’s boring.
Nope! Totally wrong. We need better government, which would be best accomplished by implementing the Progressive agenda. Its taking a lot longer than we thought, and we could use your help, if you’re not too busy.
And by the way, Sam, when did you get such a massive hard-on for unions? This seems a recent development, diatribe-wise.
Your facts about Frannie and Freddie are wrong.
The DMCA CUT ACROSS ALL LINES. There was no real opposition. Most people have NO clue what DMCA stands for.
Farmer’s issues are state issues and again, you need to ask why the programs were put into effect in the first place. you consistently put the cart before the horse and appear to want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
My one day here has seen nothing but reactionary and alarmist posts coming from you.
Liberals are not anti-Capitalist or anti-Business. You need to get out more often. When I was in the Democratic party, I was around many a big Capitalist and business man who was a liberal. Where the hell do you think the money for elections were raised from?
Most were from true believers who succeeded in business.
People like you have habit of thinking and believing in bs. Most of the business men and war heroes I grew up around were liberal Democrats. It wasn’t until I left the safety of home that I ran into an ignorance that viewed liberals and Democrats as one-dimensional. Sad fact was how wrong the one-dimensional views were at their core foundation. It’s one thing to be wrong in a one-dimensional view, but quite another to have it all wrong from the ground up.
Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of – embarrassment is probably a more appropriate emotion.
Here’s a note. Fans of Ronald Reagan always say Government is the problem, not the solution. Truth is each time Reagan headed government, he proved his own case.
Truth is bad government is the problem. Always has been.
That’s not really a problem of lack of government, though. The Jim Crow South wasn’t Somalia or someplace like that, It had a government and had laws. The problem with the Jim Crow South and discrimination was twofold. First, it was a case of bad laws, in the case of the South having actively discriminatory laws against blacks. Second, it was a case (because even in the Jim Crow South, lynching a black man was illegal), of the government choosing to selectively enforce the laws it had. The government could have, if it had chosen to, investigated lynchings and cross burnings. It just chose not to.
The Federal Government Investigated.
It did. I was talking about the state governments.
So government did investigate. There appears to be more corruption and refusal to obey the laws the closer one gets to home—state and local governments.
And here people are saying they want the state and local control over certain issues. Thank you for pointing out how state and local governments can’t be trusted to do what is right.
(Sorry I am late, I just saw the segments on YouTube. Rachel Maddow is without a doubt the best interviewer on TV.)
Like most everyone else, she has her moments. 
A private club is understood to be exclusive, not open to the public. You can’t “just walk in off the street.” By asking to join, you are granting the club to impose its own rules and conditions.
You can walk in off the street into a privately-owned business which is open to the public. Having walked on, a reasonable person should expect to be treated equally to other customers walking in off the street.
So you are effectively arguing that the owner has no right to discriminate against anybody for any reason. After all if she discriminates against people with tattoos, for example, then people with tattoos walking in off the street are not being treated equally to other customers walking in off the street.
Right?
I think everybody agrees that the owner can “discriminate” against people who are making trouble, or not in compliance with health regulations.
And I think a consistently-imposed dress code is defensible.
Tattoos? I don’t see why a Tattooed-American should not expect to be served, if they are complying with the above.
I disagree here. The purpose of a lunch counter is to make money, and the owner allows people to come into his private property in order to give him that money in exchange for goods (i.e. lunch). One actually serving the public would a be a soup kitchen that gave away the food for free, or at least at cost.
That said, I can see an argument for not allowing discrimination, but it has to do with the fact that the only reason you can make money in the first place is because the government has police officers to protect you, built roads to allow customers to get to your shop, gave you phonelines to get supplies, etc. Since the government is doing that for all people, it has a vested interest in making sure that those that receive its services distribute that service amongst everyone (as it is society that let the government provide those services in the first place.)
The main reason for allowing discrimination at home is it really doesn’t matter. Every person has a home of some sort, and gets all the protections from the government. There is no reason to force someone to let someone they don’t like into their house, and would only create enmity. (That’s also the reason for only forcing a minimum number of protected classes. For example, would protecting the guy who acts like an asshole help? No, as he’s more likely to make them need to use those police services.)
The only definition that allows a home to be private but a private business public is one that says that no one has a reason to enter a private residence, but often do a public business.