View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 192 of 198 FirstFirst ... 92142182190191192193194 ... LastLast
Results 1,911 to 1,920 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1911
    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
    If it was as clear as you believe, there would never have been any debate. The fact that there has and continues is evidence that you're likely wrong. It hubris fir a novice to think he knows all. The first step toward wisdom is to start with the fact you don't know.
    man is self center and he will always work in his own interest, even those who hold seats of power, the founders speak of this.

    even they knew limits must be placed on themselves, or they would turn into wolves among sheep.

    i dont know?........i once thought as you did, i believed america was a democracy, and the founders give we the people the power, and government was constructed to work for the people.....however after reading the founders ...constitution, letters ,papers, i found this was not true at all, and it turned me upside down on my head.

    the founders envisioned a union of states each independent of each other , sovereign, with their own laws, only bound together by the 18 power of congress was given, even the bill of rights did not even apply to the states.

    when states argued among themselves then the federal government stepped in and solved the problem, when states violated the rights of its citizens under a state constitution, and the citizens felt he was not receiving justice they could petition the federal government to hear their case.

    the federal government was not at all designed to be involved in the personal life's of the people, no where in congresses powers do you see the people and the powers of congress come together.

    only 4 persons can be under legal federal government authority and i have named them many times.....pirates ,counterfeiters, traitors, and tax cheats...becuase they are the only ones which can violated any of the 18 powers of congress with their activities.

  2. #1912
    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
    man is self center and he will always work in his own interest, even those who hold seats of power, the founders speak of this.

    even they knew limits must be placed on themselves, or they would turn into wolves among sheep.

    i dont know?........i once thought as you did, i believed america was a democracy, and the founders give we the people the power, and government was constructed to work for the people.....however after reading the founders ...constitution, letters ,papers, i found this was not true at all, and it turned me upside down on my head.

    the founders envisioned a union of states each independent of each other , sovereign, with their own laws, only bound together by the 18 power of congress was given, even the bill of rights did not even apply to the states.

    when states argued among themselves then the federal government stepped in and solved the problem, when states violated the rights of its citizens under a state constitution, and the citizens felt he was not receiving justice they could petition the federal government to hear their case.

    the federal government was not at all designed to be involved in the personal life's of the people, no where in congresses powers do you see the people and the powers of congress come together.

    only 4 persons can be under legal federal government authority and i have named them many times.....pirates ,counterfeiters, traitors, and tax cheats...becuase they are the only ones which can violated any of the 18 powers of congress with their activities.
    Which, when the articles of in federation didn't work, they held their ground a kept it anyway.

    No, wait, they adjusted. Strengthened the federal government.

    I see no where in your rant any explanation for the courts ruling. That would have been my first question. Not sure why it's not yours.

    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.

  3. #1913
    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
    Which, when the articles of in federation didn't work, they held their ground a kept it anyway.

    No, wait, they adjusted. Strengthened the federal government.

    I see no where in your rant any explanation for the courts ruling. That would have been my first question. Not sure why it's not yours.
    under the articles of confederation ...commerce in states was at a stand still.

    states were at war with each other.......1 state would be angry with another and would no longer ship to it raw materials.

    states would institute trade barriers to protect their own state manufacturers, from the same product coming in from out of state.

    to solve this problem, commerce between the states was turned over to the new federal government, to end all trade barriers and wars.........done of these wars or barriers were caused by the people, becuase they dont make commerce laws, state governmentd did.

    commerce is the buying and selling or goods, ..it by the way is NOT the manufacture of goods.

    commerce inside a state is left to the state government itself ,not the federal government.

    the courts ruling on the 1942 commerce case was, ..that becuase filburn, grew wheat, and did not have to go buy it to......... feed his cattle this effected commerce.

    fliburn grew the wheat only to feed his own cattle....where does government have the power to limit what a person grows........no power at all.

  4. #1914
    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
    under the articles of confederation ...commerce in states was at a stand still.

    states were at war with each other.......1 state would be angry with another and would no longer ship to it raw materials.

    states would institute trade barriers to protect their own state manufacturers, from the same product coming in from out of state.

    to solve this problem, commerce between the states was turned over to the new federal government, to end all trade barriers and wars.........done of these wars or barriers were caused by the people, becuase they dont make commerce laws, state governmentd did.

    commerce is the buying and selling or goods, ..it by the way is NOT the manufacture of goods.

    commerce inside a state is left to the state government itself ,not the federal government.

    the courts ruling on the 1942 commerce case was, ..that becuase filburn, grew wheat, and did not have to go buy it to......... feed his cattle this effected commerce.

    fliburn grew the wheat only to feed his own cattle....where does government have the power to limit what a person grows........no power at all.
    And because they states couldn't fly right, we had to strengthen the federal government. See it yet?


    Held. Yes. Appeals court ruling reversed and remanded.
    Although the wheat may be entirely for personal consumption, it does compete for wheat in commerce, by taking away the demand for wheat by the one who grows it. As the one growing the wheat does not have to buy wheat, the demand for wheat goes down. When viewed in the aggregate (if everyone overgrew wheat “for personal consumption”), this decrease in demand would have a significant effect on interstate commerce.
    The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) acknowledges that the effect of the single farmer may well be negligible to interstate commerce, but when viewed in the aggregate of all farmers “similarly situated” it may significantly affect the value of wheat in commerce.

    http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/c...d-v-filburn/2/

    Wickard v. Filburn

    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.

  5. #1915
    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
    And because they states couldn't fly right, we had to strengthen the federal government. See it yet?


    Wickard v. Filburn
    states had problem ..we know this by the articles, that is why a constitution was created to solve those problems....between the states...not inside them.

    the filburn case is about the federal government setting a limit on the growing of wheat, which fliburn did grow more than the limit, ..but only to feed to his cattle,...the court ruled becuase he grew the wheat this means he didn't have to buy it on the market and this effected commerce ,and the federal government must take over all commerce.

    where does government get authority to tell someone how much to grow?.....the states in this case had nothing to do with this ruling, becuase it was under FDR, and his government controls.

  6. #1916
    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
    states had problem ..we know this by the articles, that is why a constitution was created to solve those problems....between the states...not inside them.

    the filburn case is about the federal government setting a limit on the growing of wheat, which fliburn did grow more than the limit, ..but only to feed to his cattle,...the court ruled becuase he grew the wheat this means he didn't have to buy it on the market and this effected commerce ,and the federal government must take over all commerce.

    where does government get authority to tell someone how much to grow?.....the states in this case had nothing to do with this ruling, becuase it was under FDR, and his government controls.
    I know, and I linked both the explanation and the case.

    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.

  7. #1917
    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
    I know, and I linked both the explanation and the case.
    the government has has also used the notion that becuase birds ,ducks ,water fowl... fly from one state to another this gives them the powers over lakes, steams and ponds, for the EPA......silly!

  8. #1918
    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
    the government has has also used the notion that becuase birds ,ducks ,water fowl... fly from one state to another this gives them the powers over lakes, steams and ponds, for the EPA......silly!
    Unless you're trying to deal with that issue, and citizens are pushing for it to be dealt with, and it is covered by a part of the constitution, this happens. Of course, it would not happen in a government run country.

    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.

  9. #1919
    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
    Unless you're trying to deal with that issue, and citizens are pushing for it to be dealt with, and it is covered by a part of the constitution, this happens. Of course, it would not happen in a government run country.
    EPA not in the constitution, and the federal government is no jurisdiction over state or private land per the constitution.

  10. #1920
    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
    EPA not in the constitution, and the federal government is no jurisdiction over state or private land per the constitution.
    Again, that doesn't matter. As our founding fathers adjusted, we have to adjust as we move forward. This isn't 1776. So, we have to address issues they didn't. Bottom up movements lead to these changes. And they had to be structured, often awkwardly, not to violate the Constitution. Occasionally there's an overreach. The courts then send it back. But it's too simplistic to say the EPA isn't in the Constitution.

    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
  •