• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?


  • Total voters
    96
In the fourteenth amendment why did they say life, liberty, and property.

What is life, liberty and property? Anyone except me and ernst know?
 
That would depend on your reason for killing me. Was I attacking you?
Everyone injures everyone else just by existing, or haven't you figured that out yet?

But to answer your question, yes, I'm sure you were attacking me. You got too close and what other reason would you have for doing that except as a prelude to an attack?



The right to property gives the owner the right to determine the destiny of that property.
Which says nothing about your alleged right to open a business.
 
I already told you why and you refused to listen. I'll try it once more and this time you'll have to remember.

Redistribution of wealth and minimum wage are economic decisions and have nothing to do with morality.

Discrimination and affirmative action are laws in place to resolve societal issues that were threatening to tear the country apart. In time the pendulum will swing the other way and they'll go by the wayside.

economic decisions?......why are only some people get wealth, and some people getting help with a job....both have color at its heart....its clearly based on a moral standard....we hear it from congress all the time....."a wage based on fairness"..a living wage...its morality based
 
Everyone injures everyone else just by existing, or haven't you figured that out yet?

So?

But to answer your question, yes, I'm sure you were attacking me. You got too close and what other reason would you have for doing that except as a prelude to an attack?

I was most likely standing around. :cool:

Which says nothing about your alleged right to open a business.

Don't be daft. Part of being able to control the destiny of your property is being able to use it as a business. This clearly means you have a right to open a business.
 
oh, so if a 20th century judge states something in complete opposition to Madison, he knows more, than Madison because of time?
Yep! Madison was not a Seer and could not have predicted what 21st century America would be like.

In fact, if you'll read your own oft-quoted works you'll find the language of the Constitution was left loose specifically because of that simple fact that they - but apparently not you - recognized.
 
Yep! Madison was not a Seer and could not have predicted what 21st century America would be like.

That shows a clear failure in understanding the purpose of a document meant to limit power.
 
I can't believe that Mo hasn't answered what life, liberty and property is. For god sakes, you can't simply hide from the fact you're wrong and think you will get away with it.
 
i am the company because i run it.

never said anyone has a right to a business.
That seems to be a contradiction.



how can a law, which is in violation of the constitution be valid?

no a license is to prevent fraud, misrepresentation, and clean safe and healthly conditions at my business, ...morality does not play a part of law.

becuase who decides what is moral.....government?...never given that authority
The Constitution doesn't speak about company rights or corporate rights nor does it guarantee you a right to open a business. No constitutional rights are being infringed here.


And it has nothing to do with morality.
 
james madison- report on the Virgina resolutions

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
I don't live in Virginia ...
 
does it say vote either, but the court says it does, and so it is with property
Which court cases, again? And is this from the same court (USSC) that upholds those pesky discrimination laws? I bet it is. LOL!


the DOI is u.s.code of the u.s, its organic law, which is the basis of the constitution, its on the first page of u..s code
Sorry, the Declaration does not contain the word "property". Try again.
 
A healthy economy promotes the general welfare.

Ah..so now we are running to the general welfare clause. We surely jump around a bit, don't we?
 
economic decisions?......why are only some people get wealth, and some people getting help with a job....both have color at its heart....its clearly based on a moral standard....we hear it from congress all the time....."a wage based on fairness"..a living wage...its morality based
You actually LISTEN to political rhetoric?!? :lamo
 
Your very existence is a lethal threat.


I was most likely standing around. :cool:
I perceived you as a threat and my "extended rights" allowed me to take action!!! :)


Don't be daft. Part of being able to control the destiny of your property is being able to use it as a business. This clearly means you have a right to open a business.
No it doesn't. Just because I CAN use my car as a taxi doesn't mean I can slap a taxi sign on top and start carrying passengers for a fee. There are certain qualifications I have to meet first.
 
I can't believe that Mo hasn't answered what life, liberty and property is. For god sakes, you can't simply hide from the fact you're wrong and think you will get away with it.
Were those previous posts directed at me? Why didn't you just day so instead of being so obtuse?

But, hey, if it's me you want, then let's not go at this half-assed. Taking things out of context is the sign of a weak case, as the anti-science proponents have been forced to recognize many times. Let's put a little more meat on this bone of contention. :cool:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
There is due process of law. No policeman is going to take you to jail for not serving black people. You'll be sued and most likely found guilty. I believe that IS "due process of law".


And, of course, a business isn't a "person" as a great many companies have shown over the centuries.
 
Last edited:
Ah..so now we are running to the general welfare clause. We surely jump around a bit, don't we?
From where exactly do you think I jumped?
 
Your very existence is a lethal threat.

What is your point?

I perceived you as a threat and my "extended rights" allowed me to take action!!! :)

That is not how this works and you know it.

No it doesn't. Just because I CAN use my car as a taxi doesn't mean I can slap a taxi sign on top and start carrying passengers for a fee. There are certain qualifications I have to meet first.

You guys seriously are dense. All laws that stop me from using my property as I see fit when not violating the rights of others is a violation of property rights. There is no reason to expect that my right to my car doesn't include the right to turn that car into a tax just like there is no reason to expect my land can't be used to build myself a business instead of a home or for that matter using my home as a business. Zoning laws that stop me from doing such are a violation of my property rights. Just like requiring me to go through the state to start my own taxi service is.
 
Last edited:
Were those previous posts directed at me? Why didn't you just day so instead of being so obtuse?

But, hey, if it's me you want, then let's not go at this half-assed. Taking things out of context is the sign of a weak case, as the anti-science proponents have been forced to recognize many times. Let's put a little more meat on this bone of contention. :cool:

There is due process of law. No policeman is going to take you to jail for not serving black people. You'll be sued and most likely found guilty. I believe that IS "due process of law".

So what is Life, liberty, and property(estate). Where did you see those three things listed before?

Why do think they don't want people deprived of those three things? Isn't that just so strange how those things pop up over and over again and yet property is never a right? What other amendment uses those three terms and who wrote that amendment? What did he believe again? :lol:

And, of course, a business isn't a "person" as a great many companies have shown over the centuries.

What did they say in Citizens United again? :mrgreen:
 
From where exactly do you think I jumped?

To the general welfare clause of course. It's the next logical place to jump when all else fails.
 
Were those previous posts directed at me? Why didn't you just day so instead of being so obtuse?

But, hey, if it's me you want, then let's not go at this half-assed. Taking things out of context is the sign of a weak case, as the anti-science proponents have been forced to recognize many times. Let's put a little more meat on this bone of contention. :cool:

There is due process of law. No policeman is going to take you to jail for not serving black people. You'll be sued and most likely found guilty. I believe that IS "due process of law".


And, of course, a business isn't a "person" as a great many companies have shown over the centuries.


Curiously the government has shown a particularly interest in taxing those businesses and corporations as if they were a person.

They've allowed them to be sued. They've allowed their assets to be seized. They've allowed them to be taxed, Theyve allowed them to be legislated against. And they have conspicuously and vociferously targeted those businesses. Evidently government believes those businesses should be nothing more than silent sheep for the slaughter.

Unfortunately all that targeting of those business has led to the necessity to treat them as human beings, with their own right to defend themselves, to protect their assets, and to represent their perspective in the political arena, and that of the mom and pop investors that actually own those businesses.
 
What is your point?

That is not how this works and you know it.
You're the one that brought up "extended rights".



You guys seriously are dense. All laws that stop me from using my property as I see fit when not violating the rights of others is a violation of property rights. There is no reason to expect that my right to my car doesn't include the right to turn that car into a tax just like there is no reason to expect my land can't be used to build myself a business instead of a home or for that matter using my home as a business. Zoning laws that stop me from doing such are a violation of my property rights. Just like requiring me to go through the state to start my own taxi service is.
Nonsense. It's talk like that that pushes other Libertarian beliefs into the cold.
 
So what is Life, liberty, and property(estate). Where did you see those three things listed before?

Why do think they don't want people deprived of those three things? Isn't that just so strange how those things pop up over and over again and yet property is never a right? What other amendment uses those three terms and who wrote that amendment? What did he believe again? :lol:
It wasn't in the Declaration of Independence as your colleague seemed to believe it was. LOL!



What did they say in Citizens United again? :mrgreen:
When a company is thrown in jail or starts voting you might make a case. Otherwise, it's an extremely limited range of recognition.


And did that case just happen to be decided by the same court you're whining about for ruling in favor of discrimination laws?
Seems like it's only OK to cite the USSC if YOU agree with their decision. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom