View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 179 of 198 FirstFirst ... 79129169177178179180181189 ... LastLast
Results 1,781 to 1,790 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1781
    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 douglas View Post
    First of all, you didn't actually acknowledge any of my question. Why should we care about the constitution? What makes it correct?
    because it is the supreme law of the law, if its not followed, your life liberty and property are not safe.........government job is to secure rights.

    the constitution setups the federal government[its structure] and gives then only 18 duties, and places restrictions on the federal government from violating the rights of the people.


    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    The states are not limited by the constitution. It doesn't work that way; statutory laws provide increasingly higher restrictions as you get more and more local. That's how it works. A local law can't give you more rights, but they can give you less. The idea that no law should restrict your rights, is ridiculous; that's what a law is.
    wrong.... the USSC ruled after the civil war, the states must comply with the bill of rights.

    again..... i did not say rights cannot be curtailed, they can, but you must commit a crime( [criminal law] or by an action which could cause pain/ death destruction of person/ property [like storing propane next to fire source where others can get hurt.) to have them curtailed, by violating the rights of another citiznen.....they cannot be curtail, becuase you just want them to, or government does not like how they use their rights.



    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    Yup, "individual", not "business".
    rights as an individual own businesser, then i have rights, they dont disappear becuase i enter business.....i have a right to commerce, right to association, property.


    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    More words from a man I don't respect as anything more than one of countless philosophers of his day. I think his ideas are short sighted, he couldn't have foresaw our state of corporatism. He made a nice beer, though.

    All of those rights are individual rights. I have no problem with bigots saying what they believe. I have no problem with porn, or abortion, or any other moral debate. If you don't like porn, don't buy it. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like bigots, don't hang out with them. But, that doesn't apply to businesses; In modern society, people are dependent on public accommodation type businesses, in a way that our founding fathers could never have foreseen. We have already created new laws to reflect these changes, the civil rights act is one of them. It's not the nannystate, it doesn't protect you from your own bigotry, it protects you from the discrimination of others.

    Whether it's in the constitution is besides the point; it's not a holy scripture or divinely inspired. As libertarians, we need to attack the nannystate, to promote individual rights, not more rights for the businesses (who are not individuals). Do you seriously think that abolishing the civil rights act will promote individual rights?

    wrong how can you say..... if you dont like something, dont buy it, dont drink it, dont hang around...but then force a person, to associate with another person.

    the constitution is the law, your stating we should only follow it when it meets your approval only, and it does not work like that.

    civil rights comes from the 14th amendment to the constitution.....in reality it was written for the slave population only, and affirmed by the USSC in 1873 in the slaughterhouse case....

    if was written so that STATES, could not discriminate against former slaves...not people or business.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  2. #1782
    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 douglas View Post
    I agree on all counts, for individuals. I support your right to throw people out of your small business for any reason, including racism, but not if you are a public accommodation. If you're a business, of a size and type that is relevant to this debate, your business decisions are no longer individual decisions. That's the issue, not whether an individual has a right to their property, but whether a business is an individual. They aren't.
    so your saying when you enter business public laws, .....take away your rights to association, property......when did laws, have the power over rights of citizens who have committed no crime.

    even the federal government states a business is a person.......us code 29 152.

    so i [myself] own a business.......when i enter business ------>i waved my rights?........rights are unalienable, they cannot be waved or surrendered.

  3. #1783
    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
    even the federal government states a business is a person.......us code 29 152.
    Let's be HONEST about this part since we've already been through this. The opening line of that subchapter of US Code specifically states:

    "When used in this subchapter -
    (1) The term "person" includes ..."

    So, that term is ONLY APPLICABLE TO THAT SUB-CHAPTER OF US CODE!
    I don't know why you have such a difficult time getting that simple fact through your head.
    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

  4. #1784
    Advisor douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-16 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    so your saying when you enter business public laws, .....take away your rights to association, property......when did laws, have the power over rights of citizens who have committed no crime.
    Mr. ernst barkmann, I'm going to have to end our debate on a "agree to disagree".
    We're getting nowhere here, we don't even define our rights the same way.

    I've been a big proponent of the legalization of Marijuana, mostly because its prohibition was unconstitutional in the first place. But if I toke it up in front of the cops, no quoting of the constitution is going to stop them from throwing me in prison. I think we can agree that the nannystate is ridiculous, and we should fight it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's already here. The best route to fight the nannystate is peaceful protest and democracy; quoting the constitution isn't going to make them follow it.

    In the end, your right to life won't stop a murderer, your right to property won't stop a thief, your right to liberty won't stop a government. Quoting your rights won't protect them.

  5. #1785
    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
    Let's be HONEST about this part since we've already been through this. The opening line of that subchapter of US Code specifically states:

    "When used in this subchapter -
    (1) The term "person" includes ..."

    So, that term is ONLY APPLICABLE TO THAT SUB-CHAPTER OF US CODE!
    I don't know why you have such a difficult time getting that simple fact through your head.
    tell me why do you not accept the fact government has made business/ corporations...persons

  6. #1786
    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
    tell me why do you not accept the fact government has made business/ corporations...persons
    The government doesn't except them as persons - not like you keep trying to use the term. Want proof? Show me a "business" that's in jail. Show me where I can deduct my "business expenses", like rent, utilities, food, etc, etc, from my income.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-28-13 at 03:21 AM.
    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

  7. #1787
    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 douglas View Post
    Mr. ernst barkmann, I'm going to have to end our debate on a "agree to disagree".
    We're getting nowhere here, we don't even define our rights the same way.

    I've been a big proponent of the legalization of Marijuana, mostly because its prohibition was unconstitutional in the first place. But if I toke it up in front of the cops, no quoting of the constitution is going to stop them from throwing me in prison. I think we can agree that the nannystate is ridiculous, and we should fight it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's already here. The best route to fight the nannystate is peaceful protest and democracy; quoting the constitution isn't going to make them follow it.

    In the end, your right to life won't stop a murderer, your right to property won't stop a thief, your right to liberty won't stop a government. Quoting your rights won't protect them.
    you are correct drugs are not in the constitution, although the government has made it illegal, it still not a duty of the federal government.

    I am discussing what the constitution and what rights are, per the documents, I am not discussing what government has done, is doing because 99% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.........per the constitution they have only 18 powers.

    your correct the nanny state is here and been around a long time...and I believe its going to end one day, because sooner or later you run out of others people money.

    the way to get rid of the nanny state is to end democracy and return to republican government.

    democracy is what allows the nanny state to be created and grow.

    ask this question ...why to liberals, cry democracy and beg for more of it........like the direct vote for president.

    democracy is the most vile form of government- james Madison

    I ask you to read the founders, federalist 10, 39, 47 63 these are very important.

    also the works of john adams, were he speaks out against representive democracy as being a terrible form of government.

  8. #1788
    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
    The government doesn't except them as persons - not like you keep trying to use the term. Want proof? Show me a "business" that's in jail.

    that is not the meaning of person, he means the business , can act has a person towards government, a corporation can go to Washington as a person and petition the government just as you and I can...however because they have money, they will get the voice heard quicker then you or I will.

  9. #1789
    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
    The government doesn't except them as persons - not like you keep trying to use the term. Want proof? Show me a "business" that's in jail. Show me where I can deduct my "business expenses", like rent, utilities, food, etc, etc, from my income.
    can a business go to Washington and stand in line like a citizen can at the door of a senator of congressman.....yes they can, and they pay people to do it for them.

    there are people who provide a service, it is to stand in line for business in Washington, until there time to speak to their representative.

    how can you arrest a business which is composed of many people?.....only if a select individual has been accused of crime can one be arrested .

    the business can be charged with a crime, and made to pay a fine.

    this is a prime example of why constitutional violations do not apply to people or business, only crimes do.

    and constitutional violations are place against government only..... and not crimes, how can government fine themselves, or go to jail.

  10. #1790
    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
    that is not the meaning of person, he means the business , can act has a person towards government, a corporation can go to Washington as a person and petition the government just as you and I can...however because they have money, they will get the voice heard quicker then you or I will.
    Which has nothing to do with your continuing misuse of "person" from your US Code reference.


    Just because an entity of some kind has some similarities to another entity does not let you expand those similarities to include everything about them. Businesses are not persons.
    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

Posting Permissions

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