Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Politics. Post political memes and quotations, and discuss your Political beliefs. If you don't want to see Politics being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. Discussions will be respectful. We recognize that political discussions can sometimes become incendiary and we will step in from time to time if it does in order to cool things down. Posts that use terms and descriptions of others such as "Wing Nuts", "Libtards", "Rethuglicans", DemocRATS", and others of a demeaning nature will be deleted. Keep discussions on point, centered on facts, and based on the principal that two individuals can come to different conclusions based on the same information and can disagree, but discuss those disagreements in an agreeable manner. Please contribute to the discussion, not try to tear down an individual because he disagrees with you. Make you comments be on the post, and not the person posting.
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#31

Post by GregD » Wed Sep 07, 2016 2:41 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: For Greg, my right to choose not to bake him a cake hurts him. And never mind that his right(if the gov gives him that right, it is certainly not one of the God given inalienable rights spoken of by our founders) to force me to bake him a cake hurts me, by forcing me to do something I find repellent, I do not count.
As I recall I ultimately agreed with you on that point about the baker. Accuracy in your posts does not seem to be a priority for you.
Well, that's not very nice. I did not remember you agreeing with me, and you are certainly going against type of your fellow liberals and dems and those you are going to vote for by agreeing with me on that, so perhaps you can forgive my assumption and failure to remember your past divergence from liberal orhodoxy. I stand corrected.

But it hardly matters as I was just using "Greg" as an example of typical liberal thinking any way, and you are going to vote for those who strongly disagree with me on that point, so you will if possible enable them to persecute people who don't want to bake a cake for someone else for unapproved reasons, so what difference does it make that you agree with me on that one point? You still stand with the persecutors of those who fail to bake on command.

But, you said to Scott "Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others." Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding would be a perfect example of that. Since you now point out that you agree with me about the baker, does that mean you are now NOT saying "Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others."?

One final clarification about your past opinions. After lengthy debating about forcing women and girls to take biological males into their bathrooms, didn't you finally admit that this was a bad thing? I know you did, but I was never quite sure if you were sincere or just being sarcastic.
Myself and my fellow liberals and dems are a collection of individuals, each with a distinct set of opinions and preferences. Lumping these individuals together and assigning them some standard characterizations is creating a straw-man; a figment of your imagination that does not actually exist. Reality is far more complex than that oversimplification. There is a constructive, non-inflammatory method of producing a "typical" reference point for discussion purposes, but I find your methods to fall short of that.

Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others. Compelling you to do business that you do not want to do harms you. There is a conflict. As a society we should strive to strike the least objectionable balance. A wedding cake with decorations indicating the happy grooms or brides is maybe not so essential. Refusing to serve dinner to a same sex couple is maybe not so acceptable even if it appears the dinner is a private celebration of their wedding.

Regarding the bathroom issue, details are important. One example is a female high school student that is required to be in school, is required to change for required gym class, and has objection to being undressed in a situation that may include a transgender female. That student should be accommodated somehow - the use of separate facilities, for example.



User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#32

Post by GregD » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:01 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:but let's get down to it: any limitations on a woman's right to choose, or not?
Up to some point, no limitations, but increasing limitations after that. Exactly what that point is, and exactly what limitations phase in when, I have no logical answer.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#33

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:42 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
As I recall I ultimately agreed with you on that point about the baker. Accuracy in your posts does not seem to be a priority for you.
Well, that's not very nice. I did not remember you agreeing with me, and you are certainly going against type of your fellow liberals and dems and those you are going to vote for by agreeing with me on that, so perhaps you can forgive my assumption and failure to remember your past divergence from liberal orhodoxy. I stand corrected.

But it hardly matters as I was just using "Greg" as an example of typical liberal thinking any way, and you are going to vote for those who strongly disagree with me on that point, so you will if possible enable them to persecute people who don't want to bake a cake for someone else for unapproved reasons, so what difference does it make that you agree with me on that one point? You still stand with the persecutors of those who fail to bake on command.

But, you said to Scott "Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others." Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding would be a perfect example of that. Since you now point out that you agree with me about the baker, does that mean you are now NOT saying "Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others."?

One final clarification about your past opinions. After lengthy debating about forcing women and girls to take biological males into their bathrooms, didn't you finally admit that this was a bad thing? I know you did, but I was never quite sure if you were sincere or just being sarcastic.
Myself and my fellow liberals and dems are a collection of individuals, each with a distinct set of opinions and preferences. Lumping these individuals together and assigning them some standard characterizations is creating a straw-man; a figment of your imagination that does not actually exist.
Total BS. On average, most dems and liberals - just like most conservatives - share a core set of beliefs, though of course they vary some what among themselves. Why are you saying such gibberish, that having a view of the average liberal is something in my imagination that does not exist? BS! Most liberal dems, including you for the most part, are against significant controls on abortion, for marriage of homoesexuals, for welfare and more or less unlimited immigration often including illegal, etc etc etc. Just because some of you are more liberal and some less does not mean my idea of the average liberal is a fantasy.
Off Topic
Reality is far more complex than that oversimplification.
A good liberal would believe that. I don't believe that if "gays are us" restaurant does not want to cater my "traditionalmarriageisus" convention, that I am harmed.(EDIT: this last sentence was moved below where it belongs.

Off Topic
There is a constructive, non-inflammatory method of producing a "typical" reference point for discussion purposes, but I find your methods to fall short of that.

Your right to discriminate in business matters allows you to harm others.
A good liberal would believe that. I don't believe that if "gays are us" restaurant does not want to cater my "traditionalmarriageisus" convention, that I am harmed. Neither do you most likely, and neither do most liberals despite the differences you say exist among that group. Most liberals do believe that if you reverse the orer of the above,and I discriminate in business matters also, they are hurt. But they are not. They can get by quite well without my performing services for them. They always have. I can get by without them having to provide me with services, and they can get by without me. We always have.



Compelling you to do business that you do not want to do harms you. There is a conflict. As a society we should strive to strike the least objectionable balance. A wedding cake with decorations indicating the happy grooms or brides is maybe not so essential. Refusing to serve dinner to a same sex couple is maybe not so acceptable even if it appears the dinner is a private celebration of their wedding.

Regarding the bathroom issue, details are important. One example is a female high school student that is required to be in school, is required to change for required gym class, and has objection to being undressed in a situation that may include a transgender female. That student should be accommodated somehow - the use of separate facilities, for example.

Back later.
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#34

Post by Scott » Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:39 pm

This is not directed to any group, just the principle in general of freedom. I agree a persons feelings and such are harmed if I refuse to do business with them, but I don't believe they have received any real harm. But that depends on semantics I suppose. If it an argument of commission vs omission. Which one is worse?

As to the narrow group who is protected, if you look at it realistically, EVERYONE is protected by the nature that gender is protected. Ethnicity, national origin, religion (well, that one is quickly dying), etc. No one can be discriminated against because we are all in a protected class. When they say based on their class, that is a joke because anyone denied a service can say it is because of their class...

Obviously we live in the real world and coexist. But we should be free to identify our core principles, then come to a compromise. I agree with Sarge on this. I don't see where there is much compromise offered most of the time (on both sides really). It is a case of my way or get out of my way. Since everyone believes they are right, they cannot bend on any issue. So it comes to who is more powerful. It comes down to what group gets to make the rules and force the rest to live by them.

Unfortunately I see us catering to the extreme minority in many cases so we can claim compassion. And of course many causes need to cherry pick their complaints or examples, because if we took the group as a whole, maybe they are doing better than they think. For example, the gay female soccer player who is now kneeling for the anthem to protest not being fully validated and supported. Last I checked they won in the supreme court and are a protected class. If she wants everyone to agree with her lifestyle choice, that doesn't happen on any issue. Unity of thought has never been a requirement in a free society. Quite the opposite in fact.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#35

Post by GregD » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:19 pm

Scott wrote:This is not directed to any group, just the principle in general of freedom. I agree a persons feelings and such are harmed if I refuse to do business with them, but I don't believe they have received any real harm.
How do you feel about the equal employment opportunity act? Fair lending laws? Equal housing opportunity? Employment, banking, and housing are just 3 examples of business arrangements that have been used by the more powerful in this country to oppress the less powerful.

As an extreme case consider the situation where no one at all will do business with you. Even if you have money you cannot buy anything at all and most likely will quickly starve to death. And you can't get any more money because no one will hire you or buy anything from you. No medical care. I hope you like walking wherever you go. You might possibly manage to survive but most of the benefits of modern life will not be available to you.

In what economists would call an efficient market it does not matter if vendor A or employer B refuse to do business with you, because there is always a vendor C and employer D that will. In that case there is no harm. But very few real markets are that efficient.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#36

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:38 pm

Scott wrote:This is not directed to any group, just the principle in general of freedom. I agree a persons feelings and such are harmed if I refuse to do business with them, but I don't believe they have received any real harm. But that depends on semantics I suppose. If it an argument of commission vs omission. Which one is worse?

As to the narrow group who is protected, if you look at it realistically, EVERYONE is protected by the nature that gender is protected. Ethnicity, national origin, religion (well, that one is quickly dying), etc. No one can be discriminated against because we are all in a protected class. When they say based on their class, that is a joke because anyone denied a service can say it is because of their class...

Obviously we live in the real world and coexist. But we should be free to identify our core principles, then come to a compromise. I agree with Sarge on this. I don't see where there is much compromise offered most of the time (on both sides really). It is a case of my way or get out of my way. Since everyone believes they are right, they cannot bend on any issue. So it comes to who is more powerful. It comes down to what group gets to make the rules and force the rest to live by them.

Unfortunately I see us catering to the extreme minority in many cases so we can claim compassion. And of course many causes need to cherry pick their complaints or examples, because if we took the group as a whole, maybe they are doing better than they think. For example, the gay female soccer player who is now kneeling for the anthem to protest not being fully validated and supported. Last I checked they won in the supreme court and are a protected class. If she wants everyone to agree with her lifestyle choice, that doesn't happen on any issue. Unity of thought has never been a requirement in a free society. Quite the opposite in fact.
Scott, you don't actually think that white males, especially if Christian, are in a protected class, do you? Do you actually think that if a private business run by blacks or gays or women ( of any race or sexual orientation) declined to do business with you because they don't like white Christian males(assuming you are in that group but you may not be, still just for example), that Obama's Justice department and either AG Holder or current AG Lynch would go after those people, or that state government would step in and try and bankrupt them? As they would you if you di such things? I claim they would not, just as they refused to do any thing significant to the Black Panthers who intimidated white voters with clubs and told them to "get ready to be ruled by a black man". No white man or Christian could get away with such actions, the government would be on their heads like white on rice, but the other side can discriminate at will. Like for instance, having a BETV or blacks only groups on today's college campuses.
http://www.bet.com/shows/bet-awards.html
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7964
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25748/
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28906/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/06/ca ... using.html

Now, I admit that occasionally a white or Christian will bring a case as a result of blatant discrimination by a college or HS, or employer, but they must be the ones to bring it, and pay for it all the way through the courts, the government ( state or fed ) could care less about helping them, might even be fighting them. But if it is the non-white and/or non-Christian who is claiming discrimination, the government is all over it. Michael Brown robs a convenience store, physically assaults the clerk( all on video), then attacks a policeman immediately afterwards, and naturally enough gets shot. As blacks burn and loot, Obama asks the police to have restraint and comments personally(as with Trayvon Martin) and sends 3 representatives to his funeral.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... al-service

In the meantime, not far from me, blacks burn a young white girl alive, not a word from Obama or his justice department. Have you even heard much about it on NBC/CBS/ABC news? I watch NBC news every night and the today show most mornings, and I don't think I have heard about it once, though I could have missed it. But do you think it would be possible to miss it if whites had burned a black alive?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/suspect-ind ... ned-alive/

Kate Steinle murdered by a 5 times deported illegal alien protected by the sanctuary city of San Fran, I don't recall a word from Obama or his justice department speaking about poor Kate. Nor would I expect a word from such racists.
http://dailysurge.com/2015/07/megyn-kel ... es-murder/

So, I don't believe we are all a protected class. But, I do agree with you that there are a whole bunch of protected classes, favored by state and federal government.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#37

Post by GregD » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:40 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: Total BS. On average, most dems and liberals - just like most conservatives - share a core set of beliefs, though of course they vary some what among themselves.
That has not been my experience. For example Catholics, by definition, share a core set of beliefs (if you can only be Catholic if you accept a certain set of beliefs - they say so), yet some Catholics are "conservatives" and some are "liberals". As an atheist I reject fundamental Catholic beliefs. Is Pope Francis a liberal because he favors things that benefit the poor such as welfare and immigration, or a conservative because he rejects same-sex marriage and abhors not only abortion but even contraception?

As another example, Sarge and I both share a belief that every person has rights that should be respected, and that same belief drives me toward one side of the abortion issue while it drives Sarge to the other.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#38

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:54 pm

GregD wrote:
Scott wrote:This is not directed to any group, just the principle in general of freedom. I agree a persons feelings and such are harmed if I refuse to do business with them, but I don't believe they have received any real harm.
How do you feel about the equal employment opportunity act? Fair lending laws? Equal housing opportunity? Employment, banking, and housing are just 3 examples of business arrangements that have been used by the more powerful in this country to oppress the less powerful.

As an extreme case consider the situation where no one at all will do business with you. Even if you have money you cannot buy anything at all and most likely will quickly starve to death. And you can't get any more money because no one will hire you or buy anything from you. No medical care. I hope you like walking wherever you go. You might possibly manage to survive but most of the benefits of modern life will not be available to you.

In what economists would call an efficient market it does not matter if vendor A or employer B refuse to do business with you, because there is always a vendor C and employer D that will. In that case there is no harm. But very few real markets are that efficient.
Did we have many folks starving to death before all these laws were passed? Somehow, all of these oppressed groups managed to survive before governments came in and said I must rent MY bed and breakfast to someone who's behavior I find offensive, so that they can do as they please in the bedroom I have paid for. (Or whatever example of forcing people to go against their beliefs you might like to use). In fact, not only did they survive, but they did so probably better than in almost any nation on earth. No wonder citizens of most nations fight to get into this nation, and always have.

BTW, the 07/08 crash was caused by federal governments encouraging/forcing banks to make loans to people who they knew darn well could never service those loans. Then the government helped the banks be more willing to to make these risky loans by backing the loans. The economy has not fully recovered from that crash yet.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#39

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:18 pm

Hey, Greg, last word to you for a while at least. I sometimes get tired of all the back and forth(believe it or not) and it is not like either of us are going to convince the other anyway. So I'm going to do my best to not respond and leave it to you, at least for now. I'm sure I will be back ready to debate more later. I think I'm ready just for some hammock and camping discussion for a while.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#40

Post by Scott » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:25 pm

In reality I don't discriminate, and I am not against the poor. in fact I have personally been responsible for the disbursement of charity to those in need for 6 years for our church. Paying rent, giving food, etc. It never mattered the race, age, whatever. The only thing that mattered is they were able to participate in whatever way they could in their own advancement. I just have a big issue when the government gets involved in this or that, it is a never ending cycle. adjust A, and get unintended consequence B. Do something for B, and then you C & D.

I don't think for a minute that we have a balance system now. The powerful will always abuse their power. Maybe not on race or gender, but on whomever they consider their foe. Take the IRS corruption as an example.

I doubt the slippery slope you describe would ever happen. There will always be people like me and you who will sell to and buy from anyone. I just think it is such a quagmire when the govt tries to make everything fair and right for everyone, it ends up that way for almost no one. I left California because all the 'good' they tried to do bankrupt the state while taking away many liberties, and it is far from equal in terms of race and money.

I Really to believe that less govt is best.
And I really do believe that racism, elitism, name your ism, can never be regulated out of people. It has to come from within.

And for what it is worth, while I think the world would be a better place if true christian principles were lived everywhere (love, forgiveness, hardwork...) I don't think it should be in modern govt because people such as yourself don't want it. Govt should be equal. Private business and household don't need to be.

I think you and I are after some of the same goals, I think we have different ways we think would be effective.
I am tired of the hateful politics we have now in our country.

I am off line for a few days.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

Fastmatt
Reactions:
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:09 am
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#41

Post by Fastmatt » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:01 am

Lots of input here. It's simple to me .i don't want to be told how I should /will live .the more a group ,govt ,individual demand it of me the more I resist it. Because I don't like the mandate many times even more than the actual message. I am not alone in this . I pretty much feel if people quit trying to force thier mandates of opinion or policy down people's throats they may actually get more results than the currant method of mandate. As soon as somebody/or govt agency tells me "you will" I'm already set on "I won't" even if I'm not totally oposed to the message. It's just how my mind works and when I have honest conversation with other people they tend to agree.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#42

Post by GregD » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:51 am

Scott wrote:I doubt the slippery slope you describe would ever happen.
Jeepers, Scott, it has happened a lot already. One example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

And then there was the whole Jim Crow era.

There are still many legal ways to discriminate if you want to, and even a lot of ways to do it illegally and not get successfully prosecuted.

I would be inclined to exempt a company from anti-discrimination laws if it makes it clear to all customers the nature of the exemption. I would take my business elsewhere.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#43

Post by sarge » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:22 pm

Quoting Wikipedia is not a credibility enhancer.

The Democrat Party was responsible for the Jim Crow era where they used Government to deny rights to people. That lunch counter wasn't off limits to black folks because it was Woolworth's corporate policy, it's because State Laws were passed by Democrats who wanted to keep people from voting them out of office.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#44

Post by sarge » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:27 pm

BTW---

Jim Crow Laws are what you get when you empower Government to pick and choose "protected" and "unprotected" groups.

That why we now see gvoernment throwing people into jail and fining them into poverty because they are not in the "protected" group.

Its a much more effective tool to "take your business elsewhere" than to punish business owners using the coercive force of government.

What we're seeing from the Democrats today is just Jim Crow 2.0 with Christians as the "unprotected" class.

Its done to make thier voters feel morally superior.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Its not the government's job to tell us how to live

#45

Post by GregD » Thu Sep 08, 2016 1:02 pm

sarge wrote:Its a much more effective tool to "take your business elsewhere" than to punish business owners using the coercive force of government.
I agree with this part.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests