LBJ

>>1857506
>If he had stayed out of Vietnam
Literally impossible giving the political climate. What's amazing is that Kennedy was assassinated so intervention came in '64 with full-scale involvement in '65 instead of full-scale involvement in '64 like Kennedy was likely going to do.

>>1857513
I understand that the commies were marching through southeast Asia, I am asking this to provoke a dialogue. Let's say that an earthquake happened or something and Vietnam fell into the ocean and the Kremlin crumbled and whatever else to keep Johnson's focus at home.

>>1857527
Still no. His handling of the Civil Rights Act is a disastrous clusterfuck in the modern day.

>>1857533
How was it a clusterfuck? He got it passed as well at the Voting Rights act. Is this the "muh states rights" meme?

>>1857548
Because it set a precedent of limiting freedom of association. If you provide a service, you can't deny people that service. Theoretically, you can. Realistically, they claim discrimination, sue, and win because of the legal clusterfuck of precedent the CRA'64 created which has continually been upheld by the Supreme Court as legal.

File: All_The_Way.jpg (162KB, 509x755px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 509x755px

cranston killed it

>>1857557
Oh yeah, there is no even appearance of discrimination that is allowed now, I forgot that North Carolina was in another country.

>>1857548
>How was it a clusterfuck?
Have you taken a good look at minority communities lately?

>>1857630
You mean the law that was struck down by appeal courts and the Supreme Court while using the rulings on the CRA as precedent?

Fucking gun grabber democrat.

Personal Top 5 for me because how hysterically furious he makes rightcucks.

>muh welfare plantations

Jej.

>>1857831
>Those Congolese negras would be so much better now if they had just stayed in their seperate facilities! It would be a racial utopia!

>>1857903
>liking someone for how the other side Rea to though they have no redeeming qualities
This is why America has gone to shit, /leftypol/

>>1857903
>defending the welfare state
Wew lads.

>>1859138
>anything to the left of john birch is leftypol
>the left certainly isn't as spooky as the right

>>1857557
B-but anon, that would be committing the high crime of preference.

You wouldn't commit such a heinous crime as having preferences? Fortunately we lock people that do this.

>>1859176
What's the point of having the preference to not serve black people in your establishment? It literally is irrational, for the reason that you'll make less money.

Is your ability to discriminate literally worth potentially losing thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands?

>>1859195
Yes.
If the guys wants it, you don't come in and force him to do something else "for his own good".

>It literally is irrational, for the reason that you'll make less money.
Some people will prefer this. You can act smug pretending that your standards are "technical" and superior compared to the "irrational" ones of the other guy, but that doesn't change it.

In socialist countries people were taught about what makes quality. There were supposedly "rational" standards imposed and sometimes backed up by force (as in going into trouble for going against the "correct" opinions of taste and manner of doing things).
It took decades for them to realize that the big bad libertarians were right and that "quality" is anything the customer wants.

Well, you can act superior saying that the man that would restrict his clientele is "irrational", but it doesn't change the fact that he is free, and should be associating and not associating with who he wants, simply because he wants or doesn't want the association.

>>1859216
>Some people will prefer this

Yeah but it's clearly not rational, is based on hatred.

As long as you admit that you are literally basing your worldview on feelings and you're not being rational, it's fine and I don't care, because then it means I can ignore you, because we'll never have a serious discussion anyway.

>>1859222
Tell me, oh wise man, which is the correct and "rational" choice between lemon and strawberry ice cream?
I don't want it to be based on my inferior feelings, oh my poor soul, but only on REASON.

I always take lemon, but as I'm systematically not taking strawberry but have a preference for lemon, I am irrational and should be re-educated to the standards of REASON.

Appalachiafag here, lotta people I know give him props for least trying to do some shit about how broke everyone here is. He's considered kinda like a well intentioned guy who wasn't able to make it work

>>1859233
>comparing the choice between ice cream, to the choice of segregating the society you live in based on race

You're not making a good case for your rationality.

>>1859244
You seem really adamant about being "rational".

>You're not making a good case for your rationality.
I didn't need to when you unironically post that there are "rational" standards, especially when you posted as your obvious example to have more money. I didn't take a job offer that raised y income by 20% because I prefer the job I'm in now. I guess that was absolutely irrational.

>choice of segregating the society you live in based on race
Choice is the important word here. You insist a lot on the race stuff, probably because it gives emotional impetus (which is apparently perfectly "rational").

Besides, there is a considerable difference between the state imposing "correct" preferences and every man acting on his own. But the second option wouldn't let the opportunity for oh so great intellects to impose their worldview.

File: hopeborders.jpg (146KB, 606x427px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 606x427px

>>1859244
>>1859222
>Yeah but it's clearly not rational, is based on hatred.
>Thus, we must send men with guns to imprison you for not baking a wedding cake for fags, or letting Mike Brown go into your gas station.

Kek, I don't know how violent fucks like you think you are doing anything good. Forcing people to use property the way you see fit is not ok. I always find it amusing that people with opinions like your usually have the lowest capacity for violence, yet demand policy that requires a great deal of violence to work.

>>1859278
I never said I agreed with the state forcing you to give service to black people. What I was arguing against is the idea that it is somehow completely rational and good for you, or good for society to actually refuse black people service.

>If he had stayed out of Vietnam
Impossible. US intervention had already been ongoing since the 50s.

>>1859278
>usually have the lowest capacity for violence
They usually don't need to, they just have to get hold of the political forces the police obeys.

>>1859294
>rational
You use that word way too much, and to mean very little.

>>1859294
Look, im not saying I hate black people.

But discriminating against certain groups may actually be very rational in many causes.

Its like asking an Airport not to search Muslims at the airport.

>>1859338
>Its like asking an Airport not to search Muslims at the airport.

It's not anywhere near analogous to that, but whatever.