CreateDebate


Debate Info

106
105
YES NO
Debate Score:211
Arguments:133
Total Votes:229
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (65)
 
 NO (68)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11105) pic



Should Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be repealed?

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

YES

Side Score: 106
VS.

NO

Side Score: 105

The government has no authority to regulate business even if the government classifies these establishments as "public accommodations."

Sure, in a free society, businesses are open to the public sphere, but most businesses are privately owned, and they should operate their business as they see fit.

However, the government does have the authority to eliminate discrimination in the public sphere.

Private businesses should have the ability to discriminate to anyone whom they are unwilling to accommodate in business matters.

For the record, discrimination is wrong, but it should be left to private business owners to decide whether if they want to discriminate or not.

If they choose to do so, the free market will decide what success will set forward.

Private clubs such as golf clubs have enjoyed the luxury of discrimination for years, why can't private businesses?

There is no difference between a private club and private business?

Both are individuals pursuing goals as private entities.

3 years ago | Side: yes
aveskde(1899) Disputed
4 points

The government has no authority to regulate business even if the government classifies these establishments as "public accommodations."

The government owns the land, defends it, and provides policing. The government has authority.

Sure, in a free society, businesses are open to the public sphere, but most businesses are privately owned, and they should operate their business as they see fit.

We tried this. This lead to radioactive products being sold as consumables, violent worker suppression, and the phrase "let the buyer beware."

Private businesses should have the ability to discriminate to anyone whom they are unwilling to accommodate in business matters.

For the record, discrimination is wrong, but it should be left to private business owners to decide whether if they want to discriminate or not.

Do yourself a favour and try visiting an area where you are a minority in a small town where your kind is rare. You'll learn a lot.

Just like with unregulated pharmaceuticals and foods, left to their own devices businesses will cheat which in this case means forming natural barriers which treat a minority as second class.

If they choose to do so, the free market will decide what success will set forward.

We already know the outcome: the majority discriminates against minorities, the minorities cannot affect change because they are (big surprise) too little to stand against the majority, and this creates a social divide, and eventual violence.

Congratulations on being a dumb ass who insists upon letting a mantra do his thinking.

Private clubs such as golf clubs have enjoyed the luxury of discrimination for years, why can't private businesses?

Golf clubs have legendarily been exclusive, barring minorities except as tokens for many decades. You want this to affect the whole of private business?

People like you are why there needs to be a way to physically electrocute people through the internet. Not even basic language or stern ridicule gets through your thick skulls on very clear issues.

There is no difference between a private club and private business?

Both are individuals pursuing goals as private entities.

So your argument is essentially, "Private clubs have been allowed to discriminate for centuries, why can't all businesses discriminate against people for arbitrary reasons??"

3 years ago | Side: No
3 points

The government owns the land, defends it, and provides policing. The government has authority.

Not even relevant to my argument.

Government is incapable of owning anything because it possess no assets. The land that it does own was paid for by private citizens.

We tried this. This lead to radioactive products being sold as consumables, violent worker suppression, and the phrase "let the buyer beware."

And it worked well. Regardless of government regulations, all products have risk. Even with all the government regulations, people still die from car accidents, food poisoning, misuse of many products, so if only proves that it is futile.

It is the responsibility of the buyer to known the risks of purchasing a product.

Consumer Protection

Do yourself a favour and try visiting an area where you are a minority in a small town where your kind is rare. You'll learn a lot.

Actually, I have. I been in Washington DC, Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Orlando, and I live in a big city now.

Do yourself a favor and try butting out of my business and stop making assumptions as continue to accuse me of youself?

Just like with unregulated pharmaceuticals and foods, left to their own devices businesses will cheat which in this case means forming natural barriers which treat a minority as second class.

This is only under the assumption that business is more corrupt than government, which isn't true. Government has a history of corruption.

the majority discriminates against minorities, the minorities cannot affect change because they are (big surprise) too little to stand against the majority, and this creates a social divide, and eventual violence.

What a surprise? The result of a democracy.

Congratulations on being a dumb ass who insists upon letting a mantra do his thinking.

Whatever???

Golf clubs have legendarily been exclusive, barring minorities except as tokens for many decades. You want this to affect the whole of private business?

Well, I can't comment on barring minorities from private clubs because frankly, the memberships are private, and it not my business, but the key word is private.

People like you are why there needs to be a way to physically electrocute people through the internet. Not even basic language or stern ridicule gets through your thick skulls on very clear issues.

Is there an argument in this senseless rant?

So your argument is essentially, "Private clubs have been allowed to discriminate for centuries, why can't all businesses discriminate against people for arbitrary reasons??"

Actually, that is correct because it is private. What does private mean? Private is personal or restricted, as opposed to public.

3 years ago | Side: yes
atomandeve(12) Disputed
2 points

I am curious as to the premise your argument lies on (and most people who support this argument): what reasons support your claim that the government has no authority to regulate business, particularly private business?

3 years ago | Side: No
1 point

I am thoroughly against prejudice of any kind, and will be the first to recognize my freedom of speech and protest against any discrimination that I see.

However, even more so than prejudice, I stand against censorship of action or opinion.

If a coffee shop near my town decides that it does not want to allow blacks, gays, Jews, I would stand outside of their windows, billboard in hand, supporting my black citizens, gay citizens, and Jewish citizens- because I have every right to act on what I believe.

But I would never set vote in any legislature that restricted how a person or entity must act just because it did not fit with my own beliefs

I would want to change the policy through coercion, in hopes that the private business will change its discriminating policies- NOT through federal force.

I may think that I have wonderful views and opinions, and so I offer them freely. I do not censor everybody else, who are entitled to what they may think are wonderful views and opinions.

3 years ago | Side: No

If a black man is a member of the Nation of Islam and owns a coffee shop, the government shouldn't force him to serve coffee to the white devils. If he refused me service, I wouldn't cry or scream that he is a bigot, I would simply get a cup of coffee down the street.

Discrimination isn't nice but neither is having a government tell you how to run your business. The government needs to butt out. Government intrusion takes away the incentive to even own a business in the first place. I would like to own a business but I have decided against it because I don't want to go through all of the red tape and jump through all of the government hoops and go through the hassle of starting a business if I am not even going to be allowed to run it the way I want. That is not freedom.

3 years ago | Side: yes
zombee(1023) Disputed
2 points

What if the next coffee shop wouldn't serve you either? Or the next, or the next? And they didn't just refuse to serve you, but sprayed you with a fire hose as soon as you stepped inside?

This is what was actually happening to victims of discrimination in the 1960s. Granted, if this bill were to be repealed, we would not see such widespread and violent behavior towards minorities. But, as a white person, you are part of the group in power; your experience with discrimination is not really comparable to a black person's. To you, negative discrimination based on race might be an occasional affront or anomalous, inconveniencing annoyance. We have the luxury of being able to ignore it because of how seldom and how minimally it effects us. To races who are actually oppressed by it, it is ubiquitous, and it is already a struggle to rise above its effects professionally, socially, and academically.

Repealing this bill would have an immediate and significant negative effect on minorities. I do not generally advocate extensive government involvement, but I do hold that one of the jobs of the government is to protect its citizens from being harmed by one another, and I believe this falls under that umbrella.

3 years ago | Side: No
aveskde(1899) Disputed
2 points

If a black man is a member of the Nation of Islam and owns a coffee shop, the government shouldn't force him to serve coffee to the white devils. If he refused me service, I wouldn't cry or scream that he is a bigot, I would simply get a cup of coffee down the street.

Big surprise. From the man who thinks that black people were getting along swimmingly during the era of the Klan, we have this little gem that a minority should just keep looking for service in a culture that is mostly against assisting him.

I would like to own a business but I have decided against it because I don't want to go through all of the red tape and jump through all of the government hoops and go through the hassle of starting a business if I am not even going to be allowed to run it the way I want. That is not freedom.

I hear you. Pretty soon we won't be able to lynch niggers any longer! Oh wait we can't?! Damn government taking away our freedom!

3 years ago | Side: No
2 points

Are we a fascist nation?

No?

Then a man can discriminate against anyone he wants.

3 years ago | Side: yes
atomandeve(12) Disputed
2 points

It is interesting that the fascist nation of Germany similarly allowed "man" (but more importantly business because that's what the debate is about) to discriminate against anyone that he wanted to, which resulted in the European Jewry being banned from stores and schools. So I think your argument would be better restated as:

are we a fascist nation?

no. but we should try to be one by repealing the civil rights law in question and allowing man to discriminate against anyone he wants.

3 years ago | Side: No
ThePyg(6736) Disputed
1 point

Anti-Semitism wasn't caused by allowing people to run businesses any which way they wanted.

The German government rounded up Jews and put them in camps. In fact, in many cases, businesses were FORCED to discriminate against Jews by the government.

3 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

I myself have been the target of discrimination. not for my race but for my sexuality. i know first hand how it hurts and tears at your self confidence and such. BUT i do believe that people should have the power to decide their own fate. if i am discriminate against in a store, sure i'm upset an hurt but i just don't go back to that store. i simply find a new place to go. it is their loss. they lose my business and business from anyone i decide to tell of their injustice. it is not the governments place to tell someone how to make money and how not to.

3 years ago | Side: yes
aveskde(1899) Disputed
3 points

if i am discriminate against in a store, sure i'm upset an hurt but i just don't go back to that store. i simply find a new place to go. it is their loss. they lose my business and business from anyone i decide to tell of their injustice.

So you're a self-hating libertarian then?

The point of barring discrimination from businesses is that is doesn't work to simply let market consequences solve things. That is what being in a minority means. It means that you have a negligible impact on business decisions.

This is why discrimination created such rampant problems in the early half of the 20th century. When left to their own devices businesses will keep a minority second class, and they will even irrationally spend money to break any change that could help that minority. What do you think is perpetuating the struggle for homosexual rights? Private businesses and similar institutions are diverting resources towards lobbying against legislation that would help these people, in addition to fear-promoting propaganda.

3 years ago | Side: No
theallknowin(49) Disputed
2 points

I am not defending what buissnesses do with their money or what they would do if they did have the right to discriminate. i am saying that the government has no roght to tell a privately owned buissness whether he can or cannot discriminate. And that whole self-hating buissness. The fact that i accept who i am and i accept the fact that other people may have a problem with it does not make me a self hating libertarian. It makes me rational. everyone is gonna have their opinions and everyone has a right to express those opinions. every buissness has the right to refuse service to any person at anytime. the reasons that they do so are up to them and them alone and that is the way it should be.

3 years ago | Side: yes
atomandeve(12) Disputed
1 point

So by this argument, if someone chooses to start a corporation whose sole purpose is to murder black people, than this is a legal enterprise as it is not the role of the government to "tell someone how to make money" -- forget the laws about murder, or about racism, lynching etc... in this case they would also be unjust, wouldn't they? because they are telling a company how they can and can't make money -- if murder is indeed wrong, than the people can boycott the business....

3 years ago | Side: No
theallknowin(49) Disputed
1 point

No. Never did i say the government didn't have a right to say what KIND of business are allowed to be run but said they shouldn't be able to regulate HOW the businesses are run. Your twisting my words.

3 years ago | Side: yes
2 points

Obviously. It is not the role of the government to interfere, let alone in personal matters. Private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, just like people should be allowed to hold slaves on private property. It is not the role of the government to interfere with people's personal decisions that occur in privacy... i may personally think that slavery is wrong, but that doesnt mean that it is wrong for other people to hold slaves.

this is satire

3 years ago | Side: yes

I do not support discrimination. I think it is wrong. But I also think the federal government overstepping its boundaries is wrong. Private businesses should be able to decide who they want to serve. If they want to loose profits because they decide to refuse to serve a minority, then it would be there loss and they would suffer.

3 years ago | Side: yes
Mahollinder(897) Disputed
3 points

I do not support discrimination. I think it is wrong. But I also think the federal government overstepping its boundaries is wrong.

US Constitution. See: Article 1; Section 8.

3 years ago | Side: No
2 points

Even though you assumed that I never heard of the power of Congress, Lets Look at the enumerated powers of Congress relevant to the Civil Rights Act.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

NO

WHY?

The original intention of Welfare was to protect from usual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity,

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

NO

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

NO

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

NO

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

NO

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

NO

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

NO

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

NO

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

NO

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

NO

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

NO

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

NO

To provide and maintain a Navy;

NO

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

NO

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

NO

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

NO

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

NO

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

WHY

"Important to note too is that the Necessary and Proper Clause, a clause much exploited by progressives over the years, was in no way intended by the Framers to permit the federal government to assume any authority outside its clearly defined enumerated powers in Art 1, Sec 8. Simply put, our wise Framers were careful not to permit an ends justifies the means scenario. To wit, in John Marshall’s discussion of McCulloch v Maryland, he clearly drew a distinction between the proper definition of “necessary” as meaning “indispensably requisite” versus the improper definition being that of “convenient”. In other words, the federal government could not arrogate unto itself any extraordinary implementing power other than that which was clearly “indispensably requisite” in order to execute its clearly defined enumerated powers, in this case to regulate interstate commerce. In truth, a cursory examination of case law since ratification of the Constitution demonstrates how the proper definition has often been ignored, misconstrued or grossly misinterpreted by an overweaning Congress and an enabling gaggle of misguided or politically activist jurists over the years."

SORRY, You are still wrong.

Supporting Evidence: Necessary and Proper (www.tenthamendmentcenter.com)
3 years ago | Side: yes
trumpeter93(984) Disputed
2 points

Article 1; Section 8 doesn't say anything about discrimination in business.

3 years ago | Side: yes
1 point

Morality cannot be legislated.

The government has no right to tell someone what they can an can't do on their own property because that is abusing their individual rights.

If a racist wants to enforce segregation on his own private property, then that is his decision and if people don't agree with it, they have to respect his private property rights, but can bring about change through economic boycott, etc.

3 years ago | Side: yes
atomandeve(12) Disputed
1 point

Morality cannot be legislated? That what CAN be legislated, and what is the point of legislation in the first place? If not for "morality" what claim do you have to be protected from being murdered on the street? What makes it wrong to steal $200 from another man? If morality should not be legislated, than this should not be a matter that the law should concern itself with -- the market will figure it out.

3 years ago | Side: No
orangepeel(182) Disputed
2 points

Morality cannot be legislated? That what CAN be legislated, and what is the point of legislation in the first place? If not for "morality" what claim do you have to be protected from being murdered on the street?

I see you've confused morality with human rights.

What makes it wrong to steal $200 from another man?

Theft is an abuse of human rights.

If morality should not be legislated

Gays can marry, but not murder.

Racism is horrible, but it shouldn't be illegal as it is someone expressing his or her beliefs. If a racist calls a black man a nigger, that's immoral but they're protected by the first amendment. If a racist shot a black man, that's not immoral, it's criminal. See the difference?

3 years ago | Side: yes
orangepeel(182) Disputed
1 point

That what CAN be legislated?

What the Hell does that mean?

3 years ago | Side: yes
CML55(5) Disputed
1 point

Rights conflict. This is part of being part of a society. If we as a nation decide that we will all, without regard to anyone else, do whatever we please in the name of 'individual right', then let's see how long before there is another Dark Age. A person's right to be an asshole should not come before another's freedom to eat or purchase goods. And saying "just go somewhere else" doesn't quite work (see e.g. 1776 - circa 1970s) And why o why do some people STILL think everything will be saved through free markets???

1 year ago | Side: NO
6 points

People act as if because one owns something they have total rights over it. It has never been this way, it was never meant to be this way, and discrimination is one of the things we as a people have judged to be beyond the scope of what is allowed on private property.

There are many things one cannot do on private property, so why is discrimination now again a hot button 40 years later?

Here, let me help the "libertarians" (basically republicans who realize calling yourself a republican isn't cool) think of it from another angle.

I cannot

murder, make bomb threats, sell drugs, hold dog fights, hold cock fights, sell slaves, perform unlicensed medical surgery, torture, dig without a licence, make mustard gas, etc

from private property.

So than, why the huge surprise that the majority of Americans would have come together to decide that discriminating against a group of people should not be allowed from private property which serves the public?

This recent revisit of the law is code for "Hey, I'm a racist too, wink wink, I just won't say outloud. So let's hide behind an obvious misinterpretation of rights provided within the confines of "private property."

Pathetic. Ron Paul and his ilk aren't fooling anyone.

3 years ago | Side: No
ThePyg(6736) Disputed
3 points

For some reason (and this is a pattern with you) people who seem to always sympathize with the less politically correct view on race politics is a secret racist to you. On shitty examinations, as well. Let us not forget your slander of all who don't view the Confederate Flag as a slave promoting symbol.

But why point this out? Me protecting these people just makes me a racist.

And also, let's just call Libertarians Republicans, because even though a shit load of their views are liberal, the fact that they love guns and free market, that automatically makes them Republican no matter how concrete and logical their points are. I don't care if they support gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling; support for isolationist policies; against theocracy and etc... nope, free market and pro-gun lumps them in with Republicans.

And your general point just sucks. You're basically saying that the private sector MUST BE EXACTLY LIKE the public sector.

Here's how to make things easy when it comes to the basic Libertarian view on Private vs. Public sector. In a public sector, the government is in charge and MUST treat all people equally and MUST abide by all constitutional rights. In the private sector, human beings have the right to do whatever they want to themselves and let anyone they want in or out and charge/treat them anyway they want as long as they don't physically put them at a disadvantage (injury, murder, rape). This does not include keeping them from doing business, for that puts BOTH at a disadvantage. Or just one. And even if it puts the other at an advantage, isn't that the whole point of business?

No. If you don't want blacks in your store, it's your right. If a cab driver has been robbed by a black dude TWICE and doesn't feel like risking it anymore, it's his right. Or we can do the politically correct thing and let these people feel like shit for the rest of their lives cause they're living in constant fear. Life isn't puppy dogs and rainbows; people sometimes have legitimate reasons for fearing a certain group of people and sometimes they don't. Government isn't the one to choose their fate on this shit. We are in a free country (supposedly).

3 years ago | Side: yes
iamdavidh(4844) Disputed
2 points

Repealing Title II of the Civil Rights Act isn't "a little less politically correct"

It's either covert racism or an utter lack of any historical knowledge.

I'm no where near politically correct - I think nudity should be legal and curse words should be spoken by kindergartners.

But I know covert racism when I see it, and will continue to call it out instead of pretending there is some innocent malevolent sub context.

3 years ago | Side: No
CML55(5) Disputed
1 point

"people sometimes have legitimate reasons for fearing a certain group of people and sometimes they don't."

So you are for individual rights but think some people do not have the right to be treated as individuals? How does that work?

Anywho, the government is responsible for the relationship between itself and citizens, but also has responsibilities in some of the relationships between individuals that are deleterious to society as a whole. That's why rape is a criminal offense in which the government gets involved and a breach of a contract between two individuals generally is not. Certain discrimination are harmful to society as a whole. So the problem I think I have with all these cries of enhanced individual rights, no matter the consequences, is that people are suggesting that society can go to hell and your neighbor can too as long as you get what you want. And I don't think I need to explain why that attitude is so dangerous.

1 year ago | Side: NO
2 points

I suggest you have never been the target of discrimination and have no idea how lost and alone it can make you feel. If the business owner has no valid reason for discriminating then he should not be allowed to.

3 years ago | Side: No
2 points

Actually, everyone is guilty of discrimination and been victim of discrimination.

For example, for those who choose whom they marry, that is a form of discrimination or if you have asked a guy or girl onto a date, and were rejected, that is a form of discrimination. There are all sorts of different discrimination.

Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership in a certain group or category. Wikipedia

So, if someone rejects someone on a date, that are prejudicial to that person on based on their membership whether s/he is ugly, handsome, rich or poor.

Personal preferences in relationships are no different than personal private preferences of businesses.

3 years ago | Side: yes
Mahollinder(897) Disputed
4 points

Actually, everyone is guilty of discrimination and been victim of discrimination.

See: Equivocation

Personal preferences in relationships are no different than personal private preferences of businesses.

Oh god.

I really hope you don't vote.

3 years ago | Side: No
BlackSheep(193) Disputed
1 point

I think your point of view is overly simplistic. If I choose to not date someone after the first date it is not because they are ugly or poor is is based on a complex dynamic of our personalities and other factors. Even in selecting a date and if we only use appearance there is no true category of ugly or handsome, it is how they appeal to us. It is not a specific group.

As explained with businesses it is very different. You may be the only business of that type around and if you wish to ban someone because they are causing a problem that is one thing, but to simply exclude a group is unfair and can be used to drive them away.

2 years ago | Side: NO
2 points

I, literally just read the entire act. It says nothing about denying a person entrance into a facility that isn't owned by the government. It only talks about discriminating against someone based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin while applying for a job; denying anyone the right to vote; and segregation of public schools based on race, color, religion, or national origin. X( Where did you get this stuff from???

3 years ago | Side: No

because it the every persons right to shop where they want, provided they do not create disruptions or theft. if someone does not create any problems, they should not be forced to leave.

3 years ago | Side: No

If the owning class of a society was diversified not only in their prejudiced but in their ethnicity, sub-culture, etc. Then anti-discrimination laws may be unnecessary to promote the public good and may even get in the way of it, but the owning class still tends to be older, conservative, white males. If there is a force that may cause this group to become discriminatory, then the majority of the owning class becomes discriminatory. This means that there wouldn't be enough businesses not discriminating to counter balance and make irrelevant the discrimination other businesses would implement. Such a process would result in much of the common wealth of society being cut off from a sizable portion of the population, while simultaneously making that portion less productive, less healthy, etc. This harms society as a whole and is counter to the common welfare. Government is constitutionally granted the right to regulate commerce(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause) with or without but especially for the purpose of promoting the common welfare.

3 years ago | Side: No

The fact that this is even up for consideration scares me. The only businesses against this would be business that would put it into practice, which is wrong. Is this now how Germany turned a blind eye to Jews in the first place? Refuse their services, refuse them service. The rights of a business should never be held higher than the rights of a man.

3 years ago | Side: No
-3 points
0 points

I meant weren't instead of were.

3 years ago | Side: No
theallknowin(49) Disputed
4 points

Uh adam and eve weren't white. the stories of the bible were written in the middle east there for their characters are? thats right, middle eastern.

3 years ago | Side: yes


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.