View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

Voters
123. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    64 52.03%
  • No

    56 45.53%
  • I don't know

    3 2.44%
Page 142 of 198 FirstFirst ... 4292132140141142143144152192 ... LastLast
Results 1,411 to 1,420 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1411
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Nice strawman of your own invention. Okay - I am lying... its not a nice strawman but a really pathetic one. I never said the original was sent to the states. You are making a fool of yourself.

    Why can't you simply post verifiable evidence that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ratified by the necessary number of states?
    He can't because there is none. LOL!
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #1412
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    He can't because there is none. LOL!

    all the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses, as declared my the preamble statement.

    all 12 clauses which were presented to the states for ratification, are declaratory and restrictive, out of the 12 declaratory and restrictive clauses ,only 10 were ratified , they were clauses 3 to 12, 1 and 2 were not ratified, however the original clause 2 was ratified in 1992

    james madison ---The proposition of amendments [bill of rights] made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive,
    Last edited by Master PO; 07-03-13 at 02:15 AM.

  3. #1413
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    One of the silliest arguments one can make is to pretend that if someone believes that another individual has the right to do something, that person must also advocate or support such action.
    Not exactly what I said. But it is factual that only people who would benefit from not being banned from discriminating based on race, gender, or religion are those who would do that - the bigot.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #1414
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not exactly what I said. But it is factual that only people who would benefit from not being banned from discriminating based on race, gender, or religion are those who would do that - the bigot.
    people who discriminate are bigots, however being a bigot is not a crime.

    they have the liberty to be racist, bigots, what ever kind of hate mongers they wish to me, has long as they dont commit crime, do something which could cause damage to a person of another persons property.

  5. #1415
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    people who discriminate are bigots, however being a bigot is not a crime.

    they have the liberty to be racist, bigots, what ever kind of hate mongers they wish to me, has long as they dont commit crime, do something which could cause damage to a person of another persons property.
    Didn't say it was.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #1416
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Didn't say it was.
    cannot we ever agree on anything.

    my statement was not meant as a slight on you.

  7. #1417
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Not exactly what I said. But it is factual that only people who would benefit from not being banned from discriminating based on race, gender, or religion are those who would do that - the bigot.
    that is irrelevant. Only stupid people want the right to smoke but I fully support their right to do so. and in the long run if you discriminate against good customers or workers based on bigoted or other silly reasons, the person you harm is yourself



  8. #1418
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    all the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses, as declared my the preamble statement.

    all 12 clauses which were presented to the states for ratification, are declaratory and restrictive, out of the 12 declaratory and restrictive clauses ,only 10 were ratified , they were clauses 3 to 12, 1 and 2 were not ratified, however the original clause 2 was ratified in 1992

    <snip - unrelated material>
    None of which proves your assertions that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ever ratified by the States and accepted as law. You have no proof of that because it never happened.


    For further discussion and a reminder of your last failure at proving this assertion please see ...

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...ll-rights.html
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  9. #1419
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    None of which proves your assertions that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ever ratified by the States and accepted as law. You have no proof of that because it never happened.


    For further discussion and a reminder of your last failure at proving this assertion please see ...

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...ll-rights.html
    the preamble to the bill of rights states is a statement on the document that all the clauses that are contained in it......are declaratory and restrictive clauses.

    there were 12 declaratory and restrictive clauses..... the states ratified 10 of those declaratory and restrictive which James Madison created.

    by the clauses being declaratory and restrictive, the federal government has no power over them, as can be read in the preamble of the document.

    rights are unalienable, if they could be changed or abolished...they would not be unalienable,

    James Madison in 1800 ---The proposition of amendments [bill of rights] made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive,

  10. #1420
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that is irrelevant. Only stupid people want the right to smoke but I fully support their right to do so. and in the long run if you discriminate against good customers or workers based on bigoted or other silly reasons, the person you harm is yourself
    No, you also hurttheperson you discriminate against. This was shown in the court case I linked. Unlike smoking, there is harm outside of the self. That's why it's important to know the history and context of the law and it was upheld.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •