The Goat Pen

hedge wrote:I think they should let it fly. Let anybody ban anybody they want. The market will weed those places out...

I personally believe that too.

I guess they are scared of a place like that thriving in the market.

It might thrive in certain areas, but then those areas will become more and more marginalized. Not overnight, but what change does occur overnight? None. Maybe even large areas won't change, like Utah or backwoods communities in the deep south (or Kentucky - sorry, I couldn't resist), but then normal people can just avoid those places and eventually they'll breed themselves out of existence. This has already happened to a large degree. The large urban areas that are more open and tolerant run the country, while the dirt poor hilljacks and flatjacks in the West Virginia and Nebraska (etc) outback are regarded similarly to the inbred psychopaths in The Hills Have Eyes. So the system works...

It's all good in theory until you are frozen out of the only commercial enterprise in your little podunk town that sells [fill in blank with any particular necessity here].

It's easier to make a decision to deploy your dollars at other places when you have other places to choose from. When you don't have that, then you are at the mercy of the commercial enterprise who holds the keys to that necessity. Competition isn't everywhere, like we would like to pretend it is. You'll really get to understand a correlating feeling when the only ISP in your area starts cherry picking what websites you'll have ease of movement in.

I guess but if there is a buck to be made and someone is leaving money on the table so to speak by refusing service, someone should fill that void, and if you do it better than the other guy, then you're going to get his business as well.

"It's all good in theory until you are frozen out of the only commercial enterprise in your little podunk town"

That's what I'm saying though. If enough normal and/or marginalized people would just leave those podunk towns and go live in a real place, those podunks will inbreed themselves out of existence in a few generations. Which would be a good thing...

Republican strategists like to say the party's next nominee needs to hail from the GOP's gubernatorial ranks. It's a response to how unpopular Washington is—particularly the party's congressional wing—and a reflection of the party's strength in holding a majority of governorships. But another reason for the gubernatorial focus is to sidestep the one formidable candidate that gives the establishment heartburn: Sen. Rand Paul.

Make no mistake: The Kentuckian scares the living daylights out of many Republicans looking for an electable nominee capable of challenging Hillary Clinton. At the same time, he's working overtime to broaden the party's image outside its traditional avenues of support. The 2016 Republican nominating fight will go a long way toward determining whether Paul is the modern version of Barry Goldwater or at the leading edge of a new, more libertarian brand of Republicanism.

"That's the big challenge—is America ready? I think that Rand and his small-L libertarian Republicanism can break through," said Paul's longtime adviser Jesse Benton. "He's a fundamentally better messenger than Barry Goldwater—[Goldwater's 1964 campaign slogan] 'In your heart you know he's right' is not very compelling. Rand is a wonderful communicator, and I think a message of individual liberty can build wide support."

Either way, Paul's brand of politics is a distinct departure from the party's traditional moorings. His occasional sympathy for Edward Snowden puts him on an island within the party. His critique of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance techniques and noninterventionist views on foreign policy are gaining some conservative followers, but are still outside the party mainstream. Many conservative foreign policy hawks could sooner support Clinton than Paul in a 2016 matchup.

And he's got a history of questionable associations and controversial comments that would make Democratic opposition researchers salivate. Whether it's hiring a top aide who was a former secessionist talk-show host (and defending him amid controversy), questioning the legality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act during his Senate campaign, or facing allegations of plagiarism from past speeches, Paul's got plenty of controversies poised to reemerge in a presidential campaign. Paul's invocation of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky to attack Hillary Clinton in recent weeks is classic Paul—throw red meat into the fire to energize the base, regardless of the political consequences.

At the same time, Paul has been doing more than almost any other Republican to expand the party's appeal to nontraditional GOP voters—the type of activity that's imperative for future success. He spoke at Howard University and historically black Simmons College in Kentucky (twice) as part of an outreach effort toward African-Americans. His Jack Kemp-like pitch for "economic freedom zones" has even drawn the interest of the NAACP, which invited him to speak. He's been leading the call for reforming drug sentencing, an issue that's won support from many young voters and minorities who disproportionately bear the burden of current zero-tolerance policy. This week, at a Missouri Republican Party banquet, he said the party needs "a more diverse party—with tattoos and without tattoos."

Meanwhile, the politics of the 2016 Republican nomination look increasingly favorable to Paul. He is one of the top fundraisers in the field, has a ready-made base of support from his father's presidential networks, and has proven his savvy political instincts with a made-for-TV drone filibuster and NSA lawsuit. The newly compressed Republican presidential calendar should benefit a Paul candidacy, since he's got the grassroots support to play in the small states and the money to fight forward in the big media-market states that follow


http://www.nationaljournal.com/against- ... r-20140225

I guarantee I just sharted in the elevator of Christ Hospital. Something cold in running down my leg.

Let's get this party sharted!!

why would it be cold?

That is exactly the first thought that went through my mind also.

He done slapped the sassy right on out a you!

"why would it be cold?"

Revenge is a dish best served cold...

By the time it hits the ankle, it's cold.

Fuck the $10.10 that the Democrats are asking for, Ann wants to raise the minimum wage to $14 an hour.

The Democrats could never get behind this policy as (by sheer demographics) they would never win another election.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-02-26.html

Ann Coulter wrote:Democrats show how much they love the poor by importing a million more of them to America each year. But then they prevent the last batch of poor immigrants from getting decent, well-paying jobs by bringing in another million poor people the next year.

You want a higher minimum wage? Turn off the spigot of low-wage workers pouring in to the U.S. and it will rise on its own through the iron law of supply and demand.

In response to the Democrats' minimum wage proposal, Republicans should introduce a bill ending both legal and illegal immigration until the minimum wage rises naturally to $14 an hour.

Australia has a $15 minimum wage for adults -- more than twice the U.S. minimum wage. Meanwhile, their official unemployment rate is lower than ours: 6 percent compared to 6.6 percent in the U.S. -- and that's with a lousy $7.25 minimum wage.

Sound good? Try immigrating there. Australia has some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world. Their approach to immigration is to admit only people who will be good for Australia. (Weird!) Applicants are evaluated on a point system that gives preference to youth, English proficiency, education and skill level.

Similarly, New Zealand will soon have an official minimum wage of $14.25 for adults. Even our Democrats aren't proposing that! New Zealand's minimum wage hit $10.10 -- the Democrats' current proposal for us -- back in 2006. Their unemployment rate is also 6 percent -- up from several years of 4 percent unemployment a few years ago.

Like Australia, New Zealand's immigration laws are based on helping New Zealand, not on helping other countries get rid of their poor people, which is our policy.

Instead of training the citizenry to look at the government as our paternal benefactor, distributing minimum wage laws and unemployment benefits in important election years, why don't Republicans put an end to the artificial glut of low-wage, low-skilled workers being imposed on the country by our immigration laws?

Republicans could guarantee a $14 minimum wage simply by closing the pipeline of more than 1 million poor immigrants coming in every year.

I love looking at data. And the data on Australia and New Zeland is in: you want to immigrate there, you better have a STEM degree and a willingness to use it. Otherwise, you are a financial sink and you are not welcome. That is how they can afford such high minimum wages.

The 1965 immigration laws were set up by Senator Ted Kennedy and his lets change the voting base and import all the stupid needy immigrants to reassure our continuous re-election scheme. Well done Ted. I say, Republicans should double-down and impose Australia's immigration laws. Then we can have whatever minimum wage we want. Lo-and-behold, you walk into a McDonalds and you'll see kids behind the counter busting their ass they way they do at Inn-n-Out because only the fittest and hardest working will survive. All the immigrants who can't speak English (who currently work at McDonalds by standing behind the counter doing nothing) no job for you.

eCat wrote:I don't know a whole lot about that Arizona law but it goes back to what Space and I were discussing regarding personal property laws. In this case I think they are trying to veil it under the idea of religious beliefs which is probably easier to justify than personal property but still is based on your rights to decide what you do with your property.

It will be interesting to see if it stands or falls and what the federal government will do if it does stand (or passes or whatever)

Bklyn wrote:It's all good in theory until you are frozen out of the only commercial enterprise in your little podunk town that sells [fill in blank with any particular necessity here].

It's easier to make a decision to deploy your dollars at other places when you have other places to choose from. When you don't have that, then you are at the mercy of the commercial enterprise who holds the keys to that necessity. Competition isn't everywhere, like we would like to pretend it is. You'll really get to understand a correlating feeling when the only ISP in your area starts cherry picking what websites you'll have ease of movement in.

It's all Civil Rights. That is all this is.

George Will said it best on George Snuffalupigus's Sunday Morning talk show, "... the principle behind Civil Rights legislation is morality. It is immoral for me to own a restaurant and then claim that IN my restaurant, ON my personal properly that I OWN and operate, that I have the right to refuse to serve black people." That is the root of Civil Rights, the Federal government legislating morality.

Rand Paul is fucking idiot because (as a libertarian) he refuses to acknowledge the morality of this. Morals mean nothing to libertarians. If they did, they would be Republicans. If I own a restaurant (my personal property) and I conduct business at the restaurant, it is immoral for me to say I exclude black people. I can't say blacks will not be served. I can say I exclude shoe less people (and if you are black and you don't have shoes you have to leave.) I can say I exclude shirtless people (and if you are black and shirtless, you wil have to leave.) I can even exclude smelly people. I can exclude smokers. I can exclude drunks. I might even be able to exclude children (if they aren't accompanied by an adult.)

But can I exclude homos? Well lets say I can actually identify a homo when he walks in the door of my business.... is it immoral to give him the boot because this guy wants to fuck other guys, immoral that I refuse to do business with men who desire fucking other men?

When you get right down to it, the legislation is based on morality. When the government gets in the business of legislating morality (the way they did with Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s and how that impacted personal property) this is where the road leads. Do we really have the right to do business with only those whom we wish to do business with? And if we are NOT permitted to in-group (bases solely on our own personal preference) whose morals win the rule of law?

it's tough to get into either Aus. or NZ by climbing a fence, lucky for the U.S. our northern neighbor doesn't have the economic deprivation as do those to our south

billy bob bocephus wrote:it's tough to get into either Aus. or NZ by climbing a fence, lucky for the U.S. our northern neighbor doesn't have the economic deprivation as do those to our south

Great.

So the GOP crafts a bill that grants a $14 an hour minimum wage that required a wall 100 feet high (and10 feet thinck with cement) and stick in on the Rio Grande, fuck you Mexico. The poorest of the poor would be forced to vote for it and the minimum wage loving Congressional Democrats would be put into a fucking vapor-lock, a legislative paradox where they can't have it both ways and maybe they would spontaneously combust into tiny pieces of anger on the Capital Building floor?

The idea that a wall will keep out the Mexicans fits perfectly with these square-headed ass cowboys who believe that's our biggest problem. Nevermind the jobs that will jump right over that wall on their way south and points beyond.

Rand Paul nor eCat are Libertarians.

I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatic libertarian. My mantra has always been fiscal conservative, socially liberal.

But not an anarchist.