Some tough positions with a poll.

[aidanjm]

I'd support the right of small(-ish) buisinesses to fire and hire on more or less whatever grounds they see fit.

re: government jobs (and possibly with larger businesses) I'd want it to be illegal to fire or hire/ not hire on certain grounds like religoion, gender, sexual orientation, race, and maybe a few other criterion.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Vic
Yes. Children are not of the age of consent and thus not capable of providing for themselves in the fashion that is to be expected of adults, nor should children be held responsible for the failings of their parents. Properly cared-for and educated children are also the only hope for the future, and it is the best interests of every person.

I can understand food as being part of the education process, but my mom was a lunch lady and believe me the healthy stuff available is slim to none. To provide better meals would be very costly and considering how our schools functioned without the program before, I just don't feel it's necessary, at least at the current level that hands it out to practically anyone who applies for it.

I didn't answer the last one. Schools need a regular and constant supply of funding. Whether or not they need MORE money is simply not something I can answer, as the MORE adds too many variables. I will say that our current methods of teaching, standardized tests and all, are horribly inadequate and need to be revamped, with emphasis on the children and not the teachers or staff.

I actually believe there are shortages of funding in certain areas of public education not because we aren't taxed enough but because the government does a horrible job at distributing funds.

 

[Siddhartha]

No, Should a business be able to fire someone because they are Jewish?

No, Should a business be able to refuse to serve someone because they are Jewish?


Yes, Nothing is free. But I think hunger in the US is inexcusable.


Yes, Please use my taxes that are being used to fund the "Drug War" to feed and educate people.


Yes

 

[imported_redlotus]

No--but on the other side of the coin, I think that employees should be required by law to give at least two weeks notice (with certain exceptions, of course)

No--this is an incredibly loaded question, but since you put it in such absolutist terms, I had to vote no.

Yes--I actually think that only some of the drugs (eg Marijuana) should be legalized. Other drugs such as crack and meth should just be decriminalized

Yes

Yes--but not by a lot. Also, any increase should go directly to supplies and after-school programs and not towards administrative costs. As for increasing teacher pay, I'm up in the air on that one.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

no
no
yes
yes
no

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Does #2 mean that a business can refuse service to black people?

Yes.

let the free market decide... if a business didnt sell to blacks... then the entire community should boycott and put it out of business...

but i guess thats just my attitude, let the market decide. same thing we smoking in public places... if it bothers people that much, then stop going, make those places change by using the power of the dollar.

its america... we should be free

We should not be free to deny freedom to fellow americans, and legalizing discrimination means exactly that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Does #2 mean that a business can refuse service to black people?

Yes.

let the free market decide... if a business didnt sell to blacks... then the entire community should boycott and put it out of business...

but i guess thats just my attitude, let the market decide. same thing we smoking in public places... if it bothers people that much, then stop going, make those places change by using the power of the dollar.

its america... we should be free

We should not be free to deny freedom to fellow americans, and legalizing discrimination means exactly that.

Do you have an ugly girlfriend?

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't believe anybody should be able to hire anybody. All tasks should be consensual with equal reward.

I don't believe in businesses for the above reason.

some drugs are legal and some are not. It's all bull sh!t.

Consider the sparrow, it toils not. Neither does it want.

I don't believe in schools or money.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: magomago
I was thinking about the business question...on whether or not they can deny the right of service to anyone...


What about selling homes? Can they deny a house to a family if they are Asian - regardless of east asia or south west asia [lol i'm hearing it in my classes so i figure why not switch ]? What if they only want white people? These are actual issues that we have faced and various state supreme courts have ruled on...and they said you CAN'T turn down a family and refuse to sell them a house because of their race...and this is where you would ultimately agree~ and I simply could not accept that.

and that is ONE instance...my god there are numerous others that we have dealt with in the past.

and i didn't vote yet - i need to think....

When I first got in the real estate lending business 12 years ago, a part of my job was taking applications from customers. A standard application form was the Equal Credit Opportunity Act disclosure. Some people would see it and ask, do lenders really do that? Deny credit on the basis of race, etc.? My response to that remains the same now as then... what? and turn away perfectly good business? I'm here to make money.

So yeah, you could get some racist asshole who would do such a thing, but it's definitely not a competitive trait in a free market. I can just see the manager to the salesman, "Johnson, why didn't you close the Nakamoto deal like I told you to?" "But, sir, I couldn't... they're.... Asian... "
Right... that's the path to the unemployment line...

Typical of the ideologue - answering what the ideology says rather than using the basic facts available.

We have the history for a long time before there were anti-discrimination laws, and the free market did *not* prevent discrimination as the ideology says it would.

Who are you going believe, the ideology or your lying eyes?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: magomago
I was thinking about the business question...on whether or not they can deny the right of service to anyone...


What about selling homes? Can they deny a house to a family if they are Asian - regardless of east asia or south west asia [lol i'm hearing it in my classes so i figure why not switch ]? What if they only want white people? These are actual issues that we have faced and various state supreme courts have ruled on...and they said you CAN'T turn down a family and refuse to sell them a house because of their race...and this is where you would ultimately agree~ and I simply could not accept that.

and that is ONE instance...my god there are numerous others that we have dealt with in the past.

and i didn't vote yet - i need to think....

When I first got in the real estate lending business 12 years ago, a part of my job was taking applications from customers. A standard application form was the Equal Credit Opportunity Act disclosure. Some people would see it and ask, do lenders really do that? Deny credit on the basis of race, etc.? My response to that remains the same now as then... what? and turn away perfectly good business? I'm here to make money.

So yeah, you could get some racist asshole who would do such a thing, but it's definitely not a competitive trait in a free market. I can just see the manager to the salesman, "Johnson, why didn't you close the Nakamoto deal like I told you to?" "But, sir, I couldn't... they're.... Asian... "
Right... that's the path to the unemployment line...

Typical of the ideologue - answering what the ideology says rather than using the basic facts available.

We have the history for a long time before there were anti-discrimination laws, and the free market did *not* prevent discrimination as the ideology says it would.

Who are you going believe, the ideology or your lying eyes?

We didn't have a free market then. We don't have a free market now.

And (much more importantly) that was a cultural issue, not an economic one, so your tirade and unnecessary personal insults are completely meaningless. Thanks for playing though.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Does #2 mean that a business can refuse service to black people?

Yes.

let the free market decide... if a business didnt sell to blacks... then the entire community should boycott and put it out of business...

but i guess thats just my attitude, let the market decide. same thing we smoking in public places... if it bothers people that much, then stop going, make those places change by using the power of the dollar.

its america... we should be free

We should not be free to deny freedom to fellow americans, and legalizing discrimination means exactly that.

Do you have an ugly girlfriend?

When mods attack.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Does #2 mean that a business can refuse service to black people?

Yes.

let the free market decide... if a business didnt sell to blacks... then the entire community should boycott and put it out of business...

but i guess thats just my attitude, let the market decide. same thing we smoking in public places... if it bothers people that much, then stop going, make those places change by using the power of the dollar.

its america... we should be free

We should not be free to deny freedom to fellow americans, and legalizing discrimination means exactly that.

Do you have an ugly girlfriend?

When mods attack.

I'm not a mod.

However, my point stands. He probably won't date an ugly girl. But it's probably not her fault that she's ugly, she was probably born that way. So isn't that discrimination? Yet he probably thinks nothing of it. Quite the contrary even.
Sometimes people make things into simple black and white issues (pun intended) to make themselves feel better about themselves. By making complex issues simple, they can convince themselves that they're perfect and (consequently) everyone who disagrees with them must be evil.
It would be easier for me if some of you just believed in religion instead. Then there would be less of a living-in-denial factor.

 

[Kwaipie]

No - This is why we had unions. Corporations already have too much power.
No - Are you kidding me?
No - Except Marijuana, that can be legalized.
Yes - Lots of kids ONLY eat at school. Some people are desperate. I don't mind footin the bill for a kids lunch/breakfast.
Yes - Retired landowners decided they were tired of paying for schools once their kids were grown and out of the house. Hence massive cuts in property taxes, hence the complete gutting of school programs. Screw the retired. Just die already.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Vic
However, my point stands. He probably won't date an ugly girl. But it's probably not her fault that she's ugly, she was probably born that way. So isn't that discrimination? Yet he probably thinks nothing of it. Quite the contrary even.

What freedom of this "ugly" woman am I infringing on? We both have the same freedom to choose whether or not to date someone. I have the right to refuse to date with her just like she has the right to refuse to date with me. Yes its discrimination but thats not significant in and of itself. Ex: colleges discriminate based on the aptitude/perceived aptitude of the applicants, but they aren't denying freedom to anyone.

Originally posted by: Vic
Sometimes people make things into simple black and white issues (pun intended) to make themselves feel better about themselves. By making complex issues simple, they can convince themselves that they're perfect and (consequently) everyone who disagrees with them must be evil.

And sometimes people make stupid assumptions.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
However, my point stands. He probably won't date an ugly girl. But it's probably not her fault that she's ugly, she was probably born that way. So isn't that discrimination? Yet he probably thinks nothing of it. Quite the contrary even.

What freedom of this "ugly" woman am I infringing on? We both have the same freedom to choose whether or not to date someone. I have the right to refuse to date with her just like she has the right to refuse to date with me. Yes its discrimination but thats not significant in and of itself. Ex: colleges discriminate based on the aptitude/perceived aptitude of the applicants, but they aren't denying freedom to anyone.

Originally posted by: Vic
Sometimes people make things into simple black and white issues (pun intended) to make themselves feel better about themselves. By making complex issues simple, they can convince themselves that they're perfect and (consequently) everyone who disagrees with them must be evil.

And sometimes people make stupid assumptions.

Sometimes people don't want to see the point. That discrimination that you say is not significant is actually the most significant thing in human society. You are denying her the freedom to have the opportunity to procreate with you. All because of the way she was born. Your example was apples and oranges BTW. Collegiate aptitude can be worked for. Ugly is born with, just like race. And it's the worst form of discrimination we have left, and people are not only not ashamed of it, they brag about it. All this supposed care for the poor, and yet ugly is what most poor have in common. For some reason, the rich are always the beautiful people.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Vic
You are denying her the freedom to have the opportunity to procreate with you.

There is no way to resolve that. Everybody in our society has the same basic freedoms when it comes to finding a life partner. We can either agree to go on date or we can not agree and not go on a date. These options are available to everyone. To make it so that this isn't true unbalances this equality of choice and will thereby give some people more freedom than others. Can you come up with a solution that does not do this?

A key ideal goal of our society is to try and provide everyone with as much equal freedom as possible. Does this work out? No. People's actions affect the freedom of others. A lazy student in school may lose the freedom to get their dream job. Lazy parents takes away opportunities (ie: freedom) from their children. A poor child inherently has less freedom than a rich child.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

 

[Tab]

Who are the 18 who voted no on drug legalization, show yourselves!