Hatemonger Rick Santorum Says Obama is Taking 'White' Money & Giving it To 'Blacks'

Why The Iowa Caucuses — And The GOP Clowns Competing in Them — Are a Total Joke: http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2012/01/02/why-the-iowa-caucuses-and-th...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 2008 Financial Crisis
• Ankeny
• Des Moines
• Gene Lyons
• George W. Bush
• GOP Primaries
• iowa
• Iowa Caucus
• Iowa Republicans
• Iowans
• mitt romney
• Newt
• REAL Americans
• Santorum
• Texas Gov. Rick Perry

[Theobrothers]

Sharpton is a moron.

LoL. The civil rights laws weren't necessary to desegregate public institutions, like schools, hospitals, and government buildings as that segregation in those places was ALREADY illegal under the constitution.

Further, to say the civil rights laws, which counter freedom of association, was a fair sacrifice to diminish racial inequalities and tensions is as asinine as claiming that minimum wage helps the poor and has helped to raise up impoverished minorities.

Stupid.

[politicalarticles]

@Theobrothers -- Stop the juggling of mis-information. The constitution and legislation go hand in hand. The civil rights acts of the 60's were meant to strengthen the constitution -- a constitution originally written by slave owners, a constitution which had failed to protect colored people even in the 60's.

When bums like you cry out about "states rights" -- you are essentially longing for the days when you could hang black people willy-nilly.

Forget it, those days are gone!

[Theobrothers]

@politicalarticles

LoL @ misinformation.

I challenge you to show me on what basis ANYONE could argue the legality of segregation within public institutions.

Further, I challenge you that where in the constitution you have the right to FORCE me to associate with you on my PRIVATELY owned property.

What a joke. Misinformation is claiming that the civil rights act did not destroy individual rights, and that it actually made us more accepting of each other racially.

[politicalarticles]

@Theobrothers -- I challenge you too, to prove that if criminal penalties are not waved in front of your face -- you might just hang me!

And, remember -- you were doing that 24/7 not too long ago.

[Theobrothers]

Ok, did you seriously not watch the two video's I linked...

Seriously?

This will be my last comment since you are content to debate in ignorance without even the slightest effort to learn something.

"So, what have been the horrific social, & Constitutional effects of having to allow"

Force, not allow.

Precedents based upon the idea of "forcing for the greater good" will, and indeed have lead to, as I stated an "erosion of ones personal property rights guaranteed by the constitution."

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers WTF does the NDAA have to do with the topic? I agree that NDAA, the Patriot Act, Warrantless surveillance are all fucking horrendus & unconstitutional, but that does not address my point about people being denied critical services based upon people's stupid prejudices.

[Theobrothers]

@schillerblvd

The Patriot Act, The NDAA, and any erosion of ones personal property rights guaranteed by the constitution.

You aren't qualified to opine on infantilism. For you to be arguing from the perspective you are means you haven't the slightest conceptual ability regarding the designation of rules.

Again, your argument bore's me, do some research on property rights, then contemplate it, then come back and debate.

Here is a starting point;

/watch?v=pEOlK4y8AUo

/watch?v=qqod16fhMPE

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers So, what have been the horrific social, & Constitutional effects of having to allow blacks, homosexuals, & other undesireables into your local pathetic widget shop?

And let's assume that one of these undesireables survived the heart attack when they were denied medical services. He may have been an officer worker, but hey! according to you, he should just go & open his own medical clinic. Do you have any clue how pathetic & infantile you sound?

[Theobrothers]

@schillerblvd

Being forced to pay the government, by DEFAULT, gives you the right to use those services. To not allow someone to use those services based on their PRIVATE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED business practices is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

If someone opens a clinic which discriminates, any other individual can open a clinic which doesn't, and free market competition will ensue.

Paying your taxes doesn't give you the right to withhold PUBLIC services.

*yawn*

[Theobrothers]

@schillerblvd

Um... Those are all created/maintained by forced taxation.

I'm bored man, nothing you bring up is thought provoking. Please get to something where I actually have to think/research to defend.

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers If you owned a clinic in Podunk & that was the only clinic for miles, should you be able to refuse business to somebody in need of emergency services because you don't like their skin color? Then why should the taxpayers be obligated to provide services, like police & fire protection for you? Ecspecially if some of those taxpayers happen to be the same people you are discriminating against!

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers Sure there is. A home & a business serve 2 entirely different purposes. Taxpayor money does support the oppurtunity for a business to even exist. What do you think would happen if the sidewalk in front of a business, the road leading to the business, the police force that protects the business, the water quality , the enviornmental safety of the area around the business, all were no longer supported by the taxpayor? Pretty hard to operate a business, huh?

[Theobrothers]

@schillerblvd

As for contracting with the local community, it really is no different than your home. With a home there are rules and regulations, forms of taxation, and etc that you must comply with. The same is true for any business. In principle there is no difference.

Sherrifs dept is a government service paid by forced taxation. So nope. He could rightfully not invite the business owner over to dinner though.

[schillerblvd]

@Theobrothers So, if you want to own a home, you absolutely have the right to let in only whom you want, but if you own a business, that means that you have contracted with your local community.

Let's say you own a business, but you do not allow blacks in your store. Your store gets robbed. The sheriff of your little podunk town happens to be black. Should that sheriff also have the right not to investigate the crime because he hates your white ass?