Yeah, Steve Nash (our local hero) wants to know if he is allowed to keep playing, not being black and all.

You have really made quite clear that you don't understand what you're talking about. You've just equated Libertarians to Utopian based fanatics. Couldn't be more inaccurate. Please actually read at LP.org so you don't sound quite so silly :)

Wow, so now you've changed business into physical assault.....logic train just left the station, thats what happens when you're losing a debate :)

So in closing, nobody here (out of the 3 or so posting) have really made a rationale reason for why Paul's comments were inaccurate. Aside from naive in response and claims of not answering questions, which I think if you actually research more than 2 articles you'd get your answers. So folks over 40 seem to believe business would be racist or bias without government declaration, even though there is only one 'real world' example in the last two decades. If one business equates to all businesses in your mind, I understand why you believe that the government must be involved to clean house. We also discovered that some people can't distinguish between small government and total anarchy :)

:bustingupI ddn't loose, and my logic is just fine. My hypothet was based on your premise, and that of Rand Paul, of less government intrusion. But I guess your positions are only applicable in certain situations (libertarian purists believe that the only legitimate function of government is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breech of contract, and fraud (is this what you mean by limited government?)). What I was attempting to show you is how much chaos it would be in the world if we took the libertarian approach to government.

Dude, you do not even understand the history of the party to which you espouse its principles. The Libertarian party was founded under the principles of anarchy by members who questioned whether government should exist at all. Do some research. You'll surprise yourself...again by what you don't know.

What's the difference between libertarians and anarchists?

The traditional answer
Libertarians want severely limited government and anarchists want none.

The humanist answer
Libertarians are nonviolent; some anarchists are violent.

The funny answer
Libertarians are to anarchists as nudists are to naked people.They're just middle class & organized so they appear less crazy.

The Party answer (from Andre Marrou)
An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican.

The straight answer
Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians.

Says the guy who wants everyone to think that all you need to foil terrorism is a watchful citizenry.

---
Organizations put out these nice, clean, well organized brochures that state their principles, goals and practices and want everyone to join based on what they read in the "color glossies."

The reality of the originations, the dirty parts that are otherwise well hidden; the parts that are suspect; the parts that don't really work; are what you find out about after you have dug deeper – or worse after you join.

The Libertarian principles you espouse are all the nice shiny parts of the brochure and you ignore the dirty parts that are reality. The reality is what I believe the people here are against.

I think you are missing my point. There is nothing holding back white people from playing basketball just like there is nothing holding back black people from driving in NASCAR. My point is this, when there are far more whites playing a sport (Hockey, NASCAR, etc) there are always stories about how there are not "enough" minorities involved. NASCAR even goes as far as having a minority development programs. However, when whites make up the smallest percentage of pretty much anything at all in this county, nobody gives a damn.

Krimson, There are always going to be companies that discriminate and are segregated.

Look at the following link. I love the way they say they are not racist, but other races are clearly not included.

About BOandO.com

Maybe whoever photoshopped that shirt on the Nascar fan should have wrote WNDA White Nascar Drivers Association. Then on the back in small print "I need to make it unequivocally clear that WNDA not Anti-Black, Anti-Yellow Anti-Brown or Anti-Red, WNDA is however emphatically Pro-White. Please, whatever you do, don't get these two points misconstrued." :rofl:

and I guarantee that I can dig online and find racist posts towards white people. So once again, sweet photoshop T-shirt to try to prove your point. Also, it was photoshopped onto a fans shirt, not a NASCAR employee. Like I have already said, NASCAR has a program designed to help increase the minority participation int the sport, so better try again. Your Denny's example was probably better.

And thousands of colleges have basketball programs that develop
players who wants to join the ranks of the NBA. In fact that's
what their in the business of doing. So where's those players
who have demonstrated their desire to compete.....:dunno:
What's preventing them from being.

As you said "If there aren't as many white players in basketball, then maybe we need to
have a "special" program implemented that aims to get white player percentages up over the next few years.
Also, maybe teams should have to invite a white player to try out for the team before thay can draft/sign monority player. Seems fair to me.

So the program is already in place and all any player needs to do is
work hard, be better than the other players around him and he will
be invited to try out for the team. That's what scouts do. ;) seems fair to me

We are not on the same page here. Read my last post to you again. You are stuck on something from many posts ago. There is nothing preventing white people from playing basketball, but there is nothing preventing black people from racing in Nascar either (not any more than anyone else that is), so I don't want to hear people complain that Nascar is discriminating based on color. Krimson chose to do so and I didn't agree with him.

So Rand Paul basically said that although he abhor's racism, the Gov't should not stop private business owners from making the poor decision to discriminate if they choose. Yet he himself is labeled as a racist for it?

I think it would be a poor descision for any buisiness owner to go this route, but if they are dumb enough they probably won't be in businees very long and surely wont make as much money.