not really. i think i align more with the libertarian ideas than other political parties but I'm still not entirely convinced it would be a practical system and there are a lot of silly libertarian stances that I disagree with.

So how is this different than service denial because of dress codes at someplace fancy? or sex discrimination at nightclub entrances?

I've been denied service for both. Sorry, but I'm with Qwerty, I'd rather know and be able to show my support or lack of. The problem is how functional would it be in the real world? Yeh, there would be racist areas booming with racist customers.. I really don't have a problem with that, let them all cluster together, fuck their cousins (hehe), and create subculture pockets throughout the US, while the rest of us rational minded non-bigoted individuals share this country with each other. I'd rather let them deny service and then deny them of government privileges and hit them with penalties than out right say, "NO you can't do that".

Again, I feel like a broken record, but this is a problem that needs to be taken into the hands of the American citizens. Let the peaceful protests and boycotts begin. If businesses like this are successful, we know who to blame. Weed out the fuckery. I only support government intervention for ish like this when it is necessary, if someone would like to enlighten me with a study or well written objective article that explains why I'm wrong, I'm open to it.

You can change what you wear in less than five minutes.

This is a good point.

The reason we have the laws in the first place is because the approach you're describing doesn't work.

Was ready to type out a long winded response, but Jansz nailed it.

It didn't work back in the day when the majority of the country was racist, but it's much different today. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend like we still don't have a ways to go, but we have made a lot of social progress, so I question if it would still function the same.

At this point in history, it's not even racism anymore. It's an inflated US vs THEM mentality.

In the 60s it was easy to pit WHITE vs BLK.

Now, it's all about conservative privileged/rich vs. anyone threatening their turf.

What wrong comes from enforcing the laws as opposed to allowing it to work itself out?

Clearly there are more than enough partisan jackasses in all walks of life.

http://www.trump-conservative.com/wp...rump-tweet.jpg

I'm conflicted because on one hand it's low as **** to go after someone's kids but on the other hand, this made me lol so it's tough.

I'd be willing to bet it won't be either one.

"The kids made me a shiv and, I mean, I'm not afraid to use it." :laughing:

^The bigboy shirt comment and Bush.. haha


Fair question, and at it's core I suppose nothing. As you know from past conversations I just prefer putting accountability on people when it comes to doing the right thing and creating social change. As I said, if function is possible without government intervention I prefer it be that way. Also, I think it's important to restrict government power during times when the government has a history(and no signs of changing) of protecting its' own interests and the interests of those who fund it over the majority.

Steve Bannon: Media should 'keep its mouth shut' - Jan. 26, 2017

https://media.giphy.com/media/14iiU15GyZwBk4/giphy.gif

He makes a good point. :D

Fair enough. I'm pretty naive to the subject, so I'm happy to have people point out flaws in my logic. It's something to think about.

dude it's so funny to me that everyone on the right seems to jump to complain about how wrong it is that richard spencer got punched, yet gavin mcinnes punches a guy in the face and it's all fun and games.

no really, it's funny, i swear. free speech is all good until it comes back and leads to you getting smacked, lul amirite?

http://www.thefader.com/2017/01/26/n...r-is-losing-it

Will Trump presidency impact Doomsday Clock?
 

https://boxden.com/smilies/2dFXNT0.gif



:shycouch:

Trump apparently going to de-fund NPR and some publicly funded arts programs. He's on a rampage.

Fake quote but I agree with the sentiment.

Why should the public be taxed to fund art? It's bonkers.

Why should the public be taxed to fund a wall that won't do anything but stroke Trump's ego? It's bonkers.

It gives us and preserves a society worth living in. That's not to mention how insignificant a portion of the tax burden it takes up (less than half of a percent). If you want to talk about unnecessary taxing why don't we talk about the military fighting illegal wars? Why should people have to pay for that?

I don't agree with the wall in principle. Or increasing the military force/fighting unjust wars @Frown.

I'd argue that the wall is different because it is supposed to achieve a goal. We can agree or disagree (probably agree, most likely) with the end result. Funding arts programs seems to go against the spirit of art itself.

Honestly, I can respect how a lot of people don't see a need for the government to fund the arts. I tend to get snarky about it when the same people are all for funding ridiculous programs that will only add to our national debt and force people who are ideologically against these things to pay for it.

I see this as a chicken/egg problem. Artists need some kind of budget to create their art. This may come from investors or a benefactor, but unless you have some kind of portfolio to convince people to invest in you, how will you ever create anything? I think a small amount of money provided by the federal government is a fine way to encourage people not to fear pursuing a career as an artist. It also sends a message to the rest of the world that we are an open society that encourages personal growth and critical thinking. As pointed out above, this is a minuscule amount of funding. Cutting it off does little to help our national debt and only sends the message that you don't want people thinking too hard.

Public radio and television are some of the only worthwhile stations you can get for content that isn't mindless, consumerist drivel. Get rid of them and the world is one step closer to being Walmart.

And the government needs to fund these why? Most of the best TV and radio I consume doesn't come from government, but from the free market. As for art, I can't even think of a solely government funded musician I would entertain the idea of listening to.

You're ****in' stupid. "I'd rather have a wall than art."

I find your idea of stimulating TV and radio to be dubious, but the vast majority of non-public TV and radio cater to the lowest common denominator, including many supposedly "educational" channels. Public radio and television have resisted government interference and are actually some of the least biased sources for most any kind of information, even if NPR does have a liberal bent, and since neither of them are dependent upon catering to morons they don't have to degrade themselves like CNN or Fox News or the History Channel do.

https://boxden.com/smilies/W7uIklp.png

The UK frequently provides grants to musicians to aid them in making a name for themselves abroad. This is why we've had multiple "British Invasions". Like an English band? Chances are they got government aid. You don't think something like this would benefit American musicians?

And I highly doubt that there would have been a punk movement in Britain if all of those guys weren't on the dole and living in squats.

Let the market decide what art gets and our culture will be built on the taste of teenyboppers with 100% disposable income.

Exactly. Many bands have noted that if it weren't for being on the dole, they wouldn't have had the time or determination to make it as a band.

I personally don't like it or consume it, therefore it's not needed for anyone else.

Yup. Showing your true colors there Goof. A proud hard right conservative. Screw everyone else. It's all about me.

Maybe things are different in the US, but the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is colloquially known as the "Conservative Bashing Corporation." It's probably more left-biased than any other major news source up here, which makes sense, because a lot of Conservatives want to scrap it. But really, no news outlet is objective.

At least don't quote me when you are ascribing a false opinion to me.

Why does the government need to fund radio or the arts? It's not a question of my subjective tastes. Obviously I have enjoyed many great BBC shows, and even radio stations. That doesn't mean I think they should have government funding as opposed to advertising or other means of gaining funds.

I think he's just patiently waiting to talk about socialism.

Because most of us have a right hemisphere to our brains that should be supported and encouraged. You may want to get an MRI. I think your brain may be all leftist.

:rofl:

I'm looking forward to seeing the 8th wonder of the world get constructed. ;)

That being said, we actually have 700ish miles of fence/wall down there already. More might be helpful.

I don't really care if the federal government does or does not fund the arts (seeing as funding the arts isn't really a function of government at that level that makes any sense), but ideally the states will get more creative in their own funding activities as a result of this.

This dick's not gonna wave itself, Mexic--I mean taxpayers!