snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Rantidote

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 22 June 2018, 12:00 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,023
Default

I know Libertarians who don't smoke pot, and who only reluctantly grant that maybe it shouldn't be illegal.

At least some of them are wildly in favor of abortion restrictions, though. And I heard one arguing in favor of debtors' prison.

-- they seem to mostly be under the impression that a) they shouldn't have to be taxed for anything and b) that, if there are no regulations, all businesses will behave perfectly because this will benefit their long-term enlightened self-interest. Suggesting that they go read a history book doesn't seem to help.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 22 June 2018, 01:51 PM
Bill Bill is offline
 
Join Date: 02 January 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
The ďpolitical outsiderĒ or whatever you call it, really pisses me the NFBSK off, so much so that I worry that Iím going to snap and start screaming on street corners.

In nearly every other job, having knowledge of the job you want is, well, THE MOST BASIC REQUIREMENT OF THE JOB! except when it comes to politics, apparently. Only in politics is being completely inexperienced about the job, is a plus. In any other field, we would be appalled by the idea of hiring someone completely inexperienced for the job. If someone needed a plumber, would they seek out Max, a licensed plumber who has been plumbing toilets for decades, or would they go with Joe, who has never plumbed a toilet, but has used tons of them, which is the same thing, am I right?
The counterargument is that you might want elected officials to represent a cross-section of the community rather than be part of a separate class with their own interests at heart.

If somebody's a small business owner, for instance, they might favor a candidate who's a small business owner and might understand their concerns, rather than somebody who's a "career politician."

One of the founders said something about letting the farmer stepping away from his plowshare and serving one term, then letting someone else in the community serve.

Of course you're right that the rep has to know the minimum about the job. We once had a mayor who lost grant money for us because he didn't follow the right procedures.

Thanks.

Bill
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 22 June 2018, 10:23 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,374
Default

A pro-Trump friend shared a video on Facebook this morning, which I didn't watch, but the description was something like "Bombshell! Woman admits her child child wasn't taken from her at the boarder, but that she paid a smuggler to bring him to the US."

Well, yeah, I'd buy that... that's been going on for years. In no way is that revelation a "bombshell". Nor does the fact that this one particular woman admitted that in any way detract from the fact that many, many other children have been taken from their parents.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 22 June 2018, 11:21 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,023
Default

Part of what gets me is the sort of post I saw on another board entirely, from someone pointing out that children brought on that sort of trip through multiple countries without documents are in danger en route, and asking, with the implication that their parents were unfit to be in charge of children, "Who does that?"

Parents who have reason to fear that, if they stay where they are, those children will be murdered, raped, forced into gangs that do such things to other people, and/or will starve to death. That's who does that. (Somebody else on that board did point that out, though not as bluntly.)
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 25 June 2018, 01:27 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,406
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
Iíve assumed that Libertarians are just Republicans who like pot. They have no problem with the GOPís militarism or their racism, and you hardly hear a peep from them about the Republicans trying to interfere with citizensí health care, but they like to smoke pot.

.
Hello Mouse, I'm DawnStorm and I'm a libertarian. I've never smoked anything in my life though.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 25 June 2018, 01:43 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Part of what gets me is the sort of post I saw on another board entirely, from someone pointing out that children brought on that sort of trip through multiple countries without documents are in danger en route, and asking, with the implication that their parents were unfit to be in charge of children, "Who does that?"

Parents who have reason to fear that, if they stay where they are, those children will be murdered, raped, forced into gangs that do such things to other people, and/or will starve to death. That's who does that. (Somebody else on that board did point that out, though not as bluntly.)
I'm guessing the same people passing this nonsense along also agree with Laura Ingraham that the children are at a summer camp and are safe and happier without their parents.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 25 June 2018, 01:48 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
I'm guessing the same people passing this nonsense along also agree with Laura Ingraham that the children are at a summer camp and are safe and happier without their parents.
Oh so they're down at Gitmo now?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 25 June 2018, 03:34 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnStorm View Post
Hello Mouse, I'm DawnStorm and I'm a libertarian. I've never smoked anything in my life though.
But you, apparently, are a lower-case-l libertarian instead of a Libertarian, which usually refers to the Libertarian Party. In my experience, libertarians and Libertarians tend to have dramatically different political positions.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 27 June 2018, 03:11 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,267
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
The counterargument is that you might want elected officials to represent a cross-section of the community rather than be part of a separate class with their own interests at heart.

If somebody's a small business owner, for instance, they might favor a candidate who's a small business owner and might understand their concerns, rather than somebody who's a "career politician."

One of the founders said something about letting the farmer stepping away from his plowshare and serving one term, then letting someone else in the community serve.

Of course you're right that the rep has to know the minimum about the job. We once had a mayor who lost grant money for us because he didn't follow the right procedures.

Thanks.

Bill
On some level, I agree with much of what you have said. It would be nice to have people in power who actually know something about the people theyíre representing. I did a long, rambling post in another thread about this, but it is something Iíve long hated, politicians and pundits invoking small town White People as Real America. Yísee unlike many of these people I have actually lived in small town, rural communities. I have attended church dinners and parades with the citizens of those places, while most of them havenít spent more than a week in the last five years in them. Hence why they tend to deal in broad, patronizing stereotypes that have little to say beyond, ďAw, arenít those hicks cute?Ē and have nothing meaningful to say about the problems facing small towns.

At the same time, politics is still a specialized field, requiring a different skill set from many other jobs. I especially direct this comment towards all these idiots who talk about running the government like a business. Businesses and government are two different institutions which serve very different purposes. Trying to run the government like a business is an incredibly stupid idea.

I will be charitable and even admit that Trump is not the first President to have been elected without having served in any public office beforehand. Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, William Howard Taft, and Herbert Hoover, were elected, despite never holding public office before. Admittedly, some of the ones listed, did a good job, some were adequate, and a few were terrible, though Iíll let poor Taylor off the hook, seeing as he, yíknow, died.

Heck as you can tell, I greatly admire Dwight Eisenhower. In addition to being the last GOP president to have not left his country in worse shape than it was when he took office, he also hadnít served in public office before becoming president. Yet he was probably one of our best presidents. Though I wonder if it was his military career that helped train him. Eisenhower was a five-star general who helped plan D-Day. I donít claim to be an expert on this, but I imagine that kind of rank in the military is as much about politics as anything else. Pulling off D-Day required a shitton of planning and probably plenty of behind the scenes politicking because even in wartime, people have egos.

I also canít help but notice that Eisenhower was the last GOP president before the GOP made The Southern Strategy a key part of their platform, but Iím sure thatís just a coincidence.

But comparing Trump to Eisenhower or any of the others listed, feels so wrong there isnít a metaphor to adequately describe it. All the politicians listed, had actually accomplished great things before the presidency whereas every indication points to Trump being a goddanged con artist: all talk, no action.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 27 June 2018, 02:28 PM
smittykins's Avatar
smittykins smittykins is offline
 
Join Date: 27 December 2003
Location: Seneca Falls, NY
Posts: 2,635
Default

"Liberals throw a hissy fit when a baker refuses services, but jump for joy when a restaurant does the same thing."
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 27 June 2018, 05:06 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,406
Roll eyes

Quote:
Originally Posted by smittykins View Post
"Liberals throw a hissy fit when a baker refuses services, but jump for joy when a restaurant does the same thing."
And vice versa for the other side.

LTTAM: People have gotten so reactionary. Every little thing (supposedly) causes some folks to go ape-nfbsk crazy.
Sit down, take a deep breath, and maybe take some Xanax.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 27 June 2018, 06:03 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,391
Default

It's illegal to discriminate against someone due to their sexual orientation. Their political affiliation and reprehensible behavior has no such protection.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 27 June 2018, 06:17 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnStorm View Post
LTTAM: People have gotten so reactionary. Every little thing (supposedly) causes some folks to go ape-nfbsk crazy.
Sit down, take a deep breath, and maybe take some Xanax.
Can I be pedantic for a moment? Reactionary doesn't mean "reacting to things" like many people misuse it to mean. It actually means "extreme conservative", specifically so conservative that you want to return to some previous state. So, for example, wanting to bring back the gold standard would be considered a reactionary political position.

So if you were to map out the political spectrum from far left to far right, the positions would be:
Radical-----Liberal-----Moderate-----Conservative-----Reactionary

IIRC, the word comes from the French name for the faction that wanted to restore the monarchy after the French Revolution.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 28 June 2018, 12:30 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,406
Default

Interesting! OK, so LTTAM are people's knee-jerk responses to just about everything. Hope that fixes it.
All that said, here are two articles from Reason: Article One. Article Two.

ETA: I should get a screen shot of your political spectrum--might come in handy.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 28 June 2018, 01:32 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,023
Default

On the one hand -- yeah, we don't want to wind up with a batch of different restaurants for conservatives and liberals; let alone with different restaurants for Sanders Democrats, Clinton Democrats, Warren Democrats, Trump Republicans, Never-Trump Republicans, Libertarians, No-Abortion-But-Otherwise-Libertarians, Anarchists, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

On the other . . .

I sit on a small town planning board. And, whenever something even slightly controversial is up before the planning board, people come up to me in the grocery store, or the drugstore, or just plain while walking down the street, to tackle me about it.

Sometimes they've just got questions. Sometimes they want to talk me into a particular position. Occasionally they're mad about a position I took.

I talk to them. It's part of the job. I volunteered for that job. (In both senses; it doesn't pay anything -- unless you count the place at the table. It's a pretty small table; but I'm at it.)

Shouldn't it be part of federal officials' jobs, also? Yes, I know: they've got a whole lot more constituents; they might never get the grocery shopping done. (How many of them do their own grocery shopping anyway, though, I wonder?) But many of those constituents have in practice no other access to them. People with money can get access, either directly or by hiring lobbyists. People without -- their only chance may be if that person comes into the restaurant which they work at. Yes, they can call or email; but that won't get them the official directly. And I called my "representative's" office quite a bit earlier this year, and emailed some -- but what I kept getting back, over and over, was emails that gave no evidence whatsoever that anyone at all had heard, or read, what I'd actually said. Some of them read as if I'd said the exact opposite.


I don't know that that justifies asking Sanders to leave, as such; or justifies working up a crowd to shout at her. But it maybe justifies telling her that the staff is unwilling to serve her, because the policies she's defending affect them; or that the restaurant is unwilling to serve her, because the policies she's defending are likely to put them out of business -- except that this technique, possibly most effective if carried out by the staff themselves, probably risks getting them and/or their friends and family members deported. It's not reasonable to expect people to go up to members of the current administration and say 'Hey! I (or my aunt or grandmother or cousin or spouse or best friend or half of my kitchen staff) am/is among the people you're trying to throw out of the country!' -- especially when this risks not only themselves but, directly and indirectly, others they associate with.

So what are we left with? Either we have to treat this situation as normal, and the officials defending it as entitled to stay in a comfortable bubble in which they only have to talk to the people with the admission fee; or said officials should expect to be tackled everywhere they go by furious and/or weeping constituents carrying pictures of terrified children?

Maybe then they just won't go anywhere; and will wind up further in the bubble. But if the alternative is to expand the bubble to everywhere they go, how is that an improvement?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 28 June 2018, 03:12 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,023
Default

Way too late to edit --

but I don't know whether my last post makes it sound as if I think only people directly affected ought to complain. Everybody ought to be complaining (though not necessarily to the exact same people, or by the same methods). There are moral issues here as well as practical ones.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 28 June 2018, 03:17 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,406
Ponder

I don't like the idea of separate everything for Liberals, Conservatives, Kinda Liberals, Kinda Conservatives, Sort of Libertarian, etc. either.

Hearing "we don't serve your kind" is unsettling, mainly because of the history behind it. Over the years, I've thought a lot about this, specifically as concerns pharmacists that don't want to fill contraceptive scrips. Yes, the libertarian view does make theoretical sense--serve/not serve who ever you want, but how far do g-you, as a business owner, want to take that? At what point will your business suffer? Do you want to be cooking squirrel under a bridge but happy that g-you stood up for what you believed in? In practice, your beliefs don't pay the bills, at least not in most cases. (Am I wrong about that?) Why even open a business if g-you're not going to serve everyone who walks through the door? [of course, this does not apply to unruly/disruptive people] Is cutting off your nose to spite your face worth it?
Of course g-you can make your restaurant a private members-only club as a way to get around serving only those folks g-you like.

ETA: Because of this incident, a restaurant located in DC proper has been the subject of threatening phone calls and vandalism because its name also happens to be The Red Hen.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 28 June 2018, 06:20 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnStorm View Post
the libertarian view does make theoretical sense--serve/not serve who ever you want, but how far do g-you, as a business owner, want to take that? At what point will your business suffer? Do you want to be cooking squirrel under a bridge but happy that g-you stood up for what you believed in? In practice, your beliefs don't pay the bills, at least not in most cases.
The libertarian theory appears to be exactly that: that businesses, or at least nearly all businesses, will indeed serve everybody; because they want that green folding stuff (or, at least, the current version in pixels someplace.)

A brief reading of history books would seem to argue differently.

(The libertarian counterargument to that seems to be along the general lines of 'but there were state laws enforcing Jim Crow in some areas!' -- usually with a side order of 'those laws were bad! therefore all laws are bad!' I don't think either part of that holds up.) [ETA: yes there were such laws; but the societal enforcement, not the legal enforcement, was the root of the matter.]

There is not, however, to the best of my knowledge, any law saying 'Constituents may not speak critically to their Federal officials except through officially authorized channels.' And I very much doubt that any such law would be found constitutional -- though with the potential next court coming up, who knows.

I think, maybe, they should have served her. But served her with a side order of considerable feedback.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 28 June 2018, 06:43 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,457
Default

I think they should not have served members of this administration. I also think that Masterpiece Cake Shop should have sold to the gay couple, at penalty of being shut down if necessary, and I think that a cake shop owned by a gay couple should be required to bake a cake for, to pull one example that prohibits gay marriage within the church, Mormons. I don't think this is in any way inconsistent.

The Red Hen was responding to specific people, and was making a call based on what those people have said and done in the recent past. The gay couple looking for a cake were denied based on who they are, and the hypothetical Mormon couple would be denied on what they believe. In the latter two cases, which I would fight against, the denial of service would be based on their membership in a group, rather than anything they have specifically done. That is wrong, and should be illegal. In the case of administration officials, it is based on what they have actually done. If there had been a restaurant that had refused to serve Eric Holder because of the "Fast and Furious" thing, or Robert McDonald because of his handling of the VA, I would have fully supported them. I wouldn't have agreed with them, but I would have supported them making a political statement by refusing to conduct business with someone who they saw in a position of power doing something that they did not agree with.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 29 June 2018, 03:53 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,267
Mouse

Iím not sure how I feel about the incident with Sarah Sanders and the Red Hen. While part of me takes more than just a small amount of schadenfreude in all this, at the same time, requiring someone to pass a political litmus test to be able to eat in your restaurant, seems a pretty stupid idea. I know as a privately owned enterprise, the owner has the right to say, ďyou canít eat here,Ē and they have a right to be opposed to Sarah Sanders. But if someone is just going out to eat and they arenít actively harassing the customers, or passively like, say, wearing an outfit covered in Swastikas, just let them order and eat their meal.

Though I thought Iíd ask my fellow Snopesters, what they thought of a similar incident, regarding Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

Maybe itís hypocritical of me, but with Nielsen, I feel more inclined to support this action more. First of all, it was the customers, not the owners, who got things rolling, but mostly because you spend a long day collaborating with a guy actively trying to destroy the lives of Mexican people, going so far as to hold their children hostage, imprisoning them in tent cities and abandoned Walmarts, and you are shocked, shocked that people at a MEXICAN restaurant might be rude to you?!

Really, being heckled is the least that Nielsen or anyone working with the Trump administration deserves. If they spend their days running roughshod over the rights and lives of others, they should be hated. They should be seen for the repugnant human beings they are. If they actively seek to destroy the lives of others, they deserve it. Itís a basic fact of life: you do something, good or bad, you have to deal with the consequences. Whether fair or unfair, you deal with the consequences. Being heckled is hardly equivalent to what is being done to those kids.

Conservatives love quoting that line from MLK, Jr. about judging people by the content of their character, but they sure hate whenever someone actually does it. I keep waiting for an Onion-style headline that goes, ďĎI Never Expected to be Judged for my Beliefs and Actions,í Sobs Conservative Politician.Ē
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Memes that annoy you WildaBeast Rantidote 1078 29 March 2018 04:21 PM
What would Stone Age memes have looked like? DawnStorm Fun House 58 10 August 2017 05:46 AM
Memes that annoy you Little Pink Pill Rantidote 13 10 March 2016 01:07 AM
Memes that annoy you Amigone201 Rantidote 1020 22 February 2016 12:05 PM
Memes that annoy you Amigone201 Rantidote 1000 04 August 2014 10:45 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.