• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
He tried pulling that stunt, again, in this thread and I kept sending him back to the other one. ;)


Not counting the incessant rambling quotes from The Gods, which for some reason seems to have more precedence than the written word. :lol:

The absolute nerve of some people making claims and then not being able to back them up. It is the worst sort of intellectual fraud.
 
still living in denial.....even after i posted pics of the actual document ratified with the preamble on them.

which by the way you wanted to see, and when i produced them you stated, well the preamble is not part of the ratified bill......:roll:

You posted pics of the message from Congress that was sent to the states.

You really do not have a clue do you? :doh:shock:
 
No. Only in the mind of the bigot.


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.
 
You posted pics of the message from Congress that was sent to the states.

You really do not have a clue do you? :doh:shock:


message?..message?.......the actual bill of rights was not sent to each state to be ratified, even you should know that, copies were made of the bill of rights and sent out to the states to ratify it, i produced states copies, by posting to you pics, of those copies......and you tell me messages.......:lol:

thanks that my first laugh today!
 
message?..message?.......the actual bill of rights was not sent to each state to be ratified, even you should know that, copies were made of the bill of rights and sent out to the states to ratify it, i produced states copies, by posting to you pics, of those copies......and you tell me messages.......:lol:

thanks that my first laugh today!

Nice strawman of your own invention. :doh Okay - I am lying... its not a nice strawman but a really pathetic one. :roll: 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?
 
Nice strawman of your own invention. :doh Okay - I am lying... its not a nice strawman but a really pathetic one. :roll: 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?

haymarket;1062006216]You posted pics of the message from Congress that was sent to the states.

You really do not have a clue do you? :doh:shock:

posted pics of the message?...message?

i posted clearly the pics of the actual copies that were used my the states to rarity the bill of rights, and everyone of those pics has the preamble on them...here they are again.

the link provided shows the COPY of the federal bill of rights, for the state of Delaware.

it clearly states that the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory or restrictive.

http://archives.delaware.gov/bor/bill_of_rights_lg.shtml

the link provided shows the COPY of the federal bill of rights, for the state of Texas.

it clearly states that the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory or restrictive.

texas picture copy of the federal bill of rights - Bing Images

the link provided shows the COPY of the federal bill of rights, for the state of Rhode Island.

it clearly states that the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory or restrictive.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-bey...tion-large.jpg

other states copies of the federal bill of rights can be found on line, and they state the clauses are declaratory and restrictive clauses also.

.
these pics of the copies of the bill of rights were send to each of these states for ratification, and each bares the preamble on them, none are without it.

to try to say the preamble is not part of the of the bills of rights is ridiculous, as say the preamble to the constitution is not part of the constitution.

sent out messages?............please!
 
posted pics of the message?...message?

i posted clearly the pics of the actual copies that were used my the states to rarity the bill of rights, and everyone of those pics has the preamble on them...here they are again.

States ratify language.

Show us the verifiable evidence that the needed number of states ratified the Preamble of the Bill of Rights.

That picture of the action of Congress IS NOT IT. That picture is the COMPLETE work of Congress that was submitted to the States. Congress only voted to ratify PART of what Congress sent them and the Preamble was NOT part of what they ratified. That picture is NOT what was ratified.

Why are you impotent to present this evidence you claim exists?
 
States ratify language.

Show us the verifiable evidence that the needed number of states ratified the Preamble of the Bill of Rights.

That picture of the action of Congress IS NOT IT. That picture is the COMPLETE work of Congress that was submitted to the States. Congress only voted to ratify PART of what Congress sent them and the Preamble was NOT part of what they ratified. That picture is NOT what was ratified.

Why are you impotent to present this evidence you claim exists?


you are losing credibility every time you post on this subject.
 
james madison--father of the u.s. constitution and creator of the bill of rights

In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments, which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an express declaration that they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, it would seem scarcely possible to doubt that no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the Constitution, as it originally stood, and that the amendment was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it.

But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments 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, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.

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."
 
Nice strawman of your own invention. :doh Okay - I am lying... its not a nice strawman but a really pathetic one. :roll: 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!
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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. :roll:
 
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
 
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/162276-can-you-legally-amend-bill-rights.html
 
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/162276-can-you-legally-amend-bill-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,
 
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.
 
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.

what you are describing is feelings, the pain of rejection.

however feelings cannot be part of law, if they were people who being filing lawsuits every day, becuase peoples feelings are hurt all the time.

there is no right to protect ones feeling.
 
what you are describing is feelings, the pain of rejection.

however feelings cannot be part of law, if they were people who being filing lawsuits every day, becuase peoples feelings are hurt all the time.

there is no right to protect ones feeling.

No, it isn't. That's just silly hyperbole on your part. If you read the court case, you'll know better.
 
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.

actually not unless everyone who has the same business discriminates against them

however, I believe in the sanctity of private property and the right of (not) to associate over the expansion of the commerce clause that gave congress unintended power
 
actually not unless everyone who has the same business discriminates against them

however, I believe in the sanctity of private property and the right of (not) to associate over the expansion of the commerce clause that gave congress unintended power

And history tells us that can happen. Prejudice is not dead.
 
Back
Top Bottom