• 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 support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights? [W:85]

Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?


  • Total voters
    62
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

people elect representatives collectedly, even Madison states that, ...but tell me how did collectivist pass legislation thru a senate, which was not in the hands of the people, pre 17th...since you stated before the founders had collectivist ideas for our constitution?

Are you contending that the Senate somehow negates the other sections of the Constitution that I have already cited which are clearly collectivist in nature?

And are you then forgetting how the Senate got their jobs in the first place and the important role of the people in that chain of political representation?

And do you compound those shortsighted beliefs even further by forgetting your previous concession that even before your hated 17th was passed many states had already changed their method of election of Senators?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Are you contending that the Senate somehow negates the other sections of the Constitution that I have already cited which are clearly collectivist in nature?

And are you then forgetting how the Senate got their jobs in the first place and the important role of the people in that chain of political representation?

And do you compound those shortsighted beliefs even further by forgetting your previous concession that even before your hated 17th was passed many states had already changed their method of election of Senators?

constitutional laws for you......i told you i am here for you.

under republican form of government ,power is dived between the states and the people, if the house which is directly elected by the people, and collective by its nature, send a bill which is collective to the senate, ...which pre 17th was not in the hands of the people, but instead the states, the states are going to reject it because it is not in their interest.

their duty is to protect state powers as will as the union, and provide a check and balance of the constitution.

which is why federalist 63 titled" the senate", explains the senate why it is created, and as legislative block to stop the collective capacity of the people.

since they created a republican form of government and not a democracy, this proves, they reject collectivism by our federal government which you claimed they created, and ...i am proving you wrong
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

constitutional laws for you......i told you i am here for you.

under republican form of government ,power is dived between the states and the people, if the house which is directly elected by the people, and collective by its nature, send a bill which is collective to the senate, ...which pre 17th was not in the hands of the people, but instead the states, the states are going to reject it because it is not in their interest.

their duty is to protect state powers as will as the union, and provide a check and balance of the constitution.

which is why federalist 63 titled" the senate", explains the senate why it is created, and as legislative block to stop the collective capacity of the people.

since they created a republican form of government and not a democracy, this proves, they reject collectivism by our federal government which you claimed they created, and ...i am proving you wrong

none of which speaks to one thing I have said to refute you since we still have a republican form of government.

Screw Madison and screw his opinions. They are no longer relevant - if indeed they ever were the day after the purpose of ratification was achieved.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

none of which speaks to one thing I have said to refute you since we still have a republican form of government.

Screw Madison and screw his opinions. They are no longer relevant - if indeed they ever were the day after the purpose of ratification was achieved.

as explained to you many times, the 17th changed the structure of the federal government and turn the senate into a democracy, like the house, making them both collective now.

and allowed collectivism, faction/special interest to grow and take over our government, government to expand and violate the constitution.

thanks for the Madison comment.....shows denial.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

as explained to you many times, the 17th changed the structure of the federal government and turn the senate into a democracy, like the house, making them both collective now.

and allowed collectivism, faction/special interest to grow and take over our government, government to expand and violate the constitution.

thanks for the Madison comment.....shows denial.

You do not even know the difference between a democracy and a republic. This explains everything.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

I support using Socialism to bailout Capitalism by reducing red tape regarding employment at will.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

You do not even know the difference between a democracy and a republic. This explains everything.

you make me sad.:(

after teaching you for so long about government, ,you show utter failure and get an F.

review for you!

a republic can be a democracy, ......France is a democratic socialist Republic, it is a democracy!

the u.s. of the founders is a Republic, it was NOT created with a democratic form of government but instead with a republican form of government - federalist 10

a republican form of government is a MIXED government-- federalist 40

a mixed government is a form of government that employs three different types of government in its creation and based on the Roman republic, which creates a separations of powers, between those three types.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

in American government of the founders, the house is the democracy,...this senate is the aristocracy, the presidency is the monarchy, these are based on how they are elected.

the house is a democracy because the people elected the house by a direct vote of the people.

the senate is an aristocracy because it is directly elected by the legislatures of the states.

the president is a monarchy because he is elected by delegates of the electoral college made up of the union.

the republican form of government of the founders, employs ONLY a single element of a democracy.


when the 17th amendment came into being, it changed the senate which was an aristocracy of being elected by the legislatures of the states, over to direct election by the people as the house is ............making it a democracy.

this turned the congress as a whole into a democracy now................. employing now 2 elements of democracy in our government..........moving America closer to that vile form of democratic government, which is always at war with individual rights of the people
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

you make me sad.:(

after teaching you for so long about government, ,you show utter failure and get an F.

review for you!

a republic can be a democracy, ......France is a democratic socialist Republic, it is a democracy!

the u.s. of the founders is a Republic, it was NOT created with a democratic form of government but instead with a republican form of government - federalist 10

a republican form of government is a MIXED government-- federalist 40

a mixed government is a form of government that employs three different types of government in its creation and based on the Roman republic, which creates a separations of powers, between those three types.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

in American government of the founders, the house is the democracy,...this senate is the aristocracy, the presidency is the monarchy, these are based on how they are elected.

the house is a democracy because the people elected the house by a direct vote of the people.

the senate is an aristocracy because it is directly elected by the legislatures of the states.

the president is a monarchy because he is elected by delegates of the electoral college made up of the union.

the republican form of government of the founders, employs ONLY a single element of a democracy.


when the 17th amendment came into being, it changed the senate which was an aristocracy of being elected by the legislatures of the states, over to direct election by the people as the house is ............making it a democracy.

this turned the congress as a whole into a democracy now................. employing now 2 elements of democracy in our government..........moving America closer to that vile form of democratic government.

One cannot help but notice that your entire post was attacks and pompous pontifications of what you believe. it is supported by no verifiable source of evidence for your statements about a republic or a democracy.

THE USA is a republic since the people elect others who run the government in their name and pass laws for them.

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people and representatives they elect,[1] and affairs of state are a "public matter" (from Latin: res publica), rather than privately accommodated (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[2][1] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition

The USA is a Republic with a republican form of government. Your personal opinion of the 17th Amendment is irrelevant and did not change that reality. Yes, it moved the election of the Senate from the State legislatures to a vote of the citizenry. But the basic element of a republic form of government - the people represented by others - is still in effect and was not fundamentally changed by the 17th.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

One cannot help but notice that your entire post was attacks and pompous pontifications of what you believe. it is supported by no verifiable source of evidence for your statements about a republic or a democracy.

really?


u.s. constitution article 4 section 4--The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

federalist 10--The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

federalist 40-THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constututional]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

really?


u.s. constitution article 4 section 4--The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

federalist 10--The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

federalist 40-THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constututional]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution

And we have a republican form of government. We can change the Constitution - as we did with the 17th - but still have a republican form of government.

Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com

re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

This verifiable evidence speaks directly to the issue and renders your complain about the 17th to the trash heap. It matters not if the representatives are chosen directly or indirectly.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

One cannot help but notice that your entire post was attacks and pompous pontifications of what you believe. it is supported by no verifiable source of evidence for your statements about a republic or a democracy.

THE USA is a republic since the people elect others who run the government in their name and pass laws for them.

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The USA is a Republic with a republican form of government. Your personal opinion of the 17th Amendment is irrelevant and did not change that reality. Yes, it moved the election of the Senate from the State legislatures to a vote of the citizenry. But the basic element of a republic form of government - the people represented by others - is still in effect and was not fundamentally changed by the 17th.



your POSTING 458
<--------------------


{A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people AND Representatives they elect,[1] and affairs of state are a "public matter" (from Latin: res publica), rather than privately accommodated (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[2][1] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition}


POWER IS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
, MEANING THE LEGISLATURE OF STATES............THIS MAKES IT REPUBLICAN.

UNDER DEMOCRACY THE POWER IS HELD BY ONLY BY THE PEOPLE, THRU THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Does a business owner have the right to select a representative to the public which represents his company in a non negative light. If that business owner doesn't want someone who looks like ZZ Top or Rupaul should they have the ability to avoid those people? Should a landlord be forced to rent to someone he believes will turn his property into a motorcycle clubhouse or an S&M parlor? Should an overtly religious baker be forced out of business because he's rather not bake a cake for a gay wedding?

I think that we all discriminate. I'm not talking about discrimination based on how someone was born. I'm talking about discriminating based on how people act. I will never go to a rap concert. That doesn't mean I dislike blacks, I don't, and have friends and employees of many races and religions. I discriminate against rap music because I don't like it.

That brings me to something written by John Derbyshire that I read long ago. Stereotypes are how we determine the safety of snakes and fauns and serve a useful purpose in society. The entire article should be read prior to comment.



• People ascribe a stereotype to everybody in the subject group. "All Germans are efficient." "All English people have bad teeth." In fact, these researchers were not able to locate anybody who believes that a stereotype is true of all members of the stereotyped group. Stereotypes are probabilistic tools, and even the most dull-witted human beings seem to know this. People who believe that Mexicans are lazy or that the French don't wash, understand perfectly well that there are lots of industrious Mexicans and fragrant Frenchmen.

• Stereotypes exaggerate group characteristics. No, they don't. Much more often, the opposite is true. For example, the racial stereotypes that white Americans hold of black Americans are generally accurate; and where they are inaccurate, they always under-estimate a negative characteristic. The percentage of black American families headed by a female, for example, was 21 at the time of one survey (1978): the whites whose stereotypes were being investigated offered estimates of from 8 to 12 per cent. It is not true that stereotypes generally exaggerate group differences. As in this example, they are much more likely to downplay them.

• Stereotypes blind us to individual characteristics. Nope. It is not the case that when we pass from a situation where we have nothing to go on but a stereotype (cab driver being hailed by young black male) to one where a person's individuality comes into play (interviewing a black job applicant), our stereotypes blind us to "individuating traits." On the contrary, researchers have found that the individuating traits are seized on for attention, and stereotypes discarded, with rather more enthusiasm than the accuracy of stereotypes would justify. Teachers' judgments about their students, for example, rest almost entirely on student differences in performance, hardly at all on race, class or gender stereotypes. This is as one would wish, but not as one would expect if the denigrators of stereotyping were to be believed.

• The real function of stereotypes is to bolster our own self-esteem. Wrong again. This is not a factor in most stereotyping. The scientific evidence is that the primary function of stereotypes is what researchers very prettily call "the reality function." That is, stereotypes are useful tools for dealing with the world. Confronted with a snake or a faun, our immediate behavior is determined by generalized beliefs — stereotypes — about snakes and fauns. Stereotypes are, in fact, merely one aspect of the mind's ability to make generalizations, without which science and mathematics, not to mention much of everyday life, would be impossible. Researcher Clark R. McCauley:

Standing next to the bus driver, we are more likely to ask about traffic patterns than about the latest foreign film. On the highway, we try to squeeze into the exit lane in front of the man driving a 10-year-old station wagon rather than trying to pull in on the man driving a new Corvette. Looking for the school janitor, we are more likely to approach a young man in overalls than a young woman in overalls. This kind of discrimination on the basis of group differences can go wrong, but most of us probably feel that we are doing ourselves and others a favor when we respond to whatever cues and regularities our social environment affords us.

Column on the human sciences
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?


your POSTING 458
<--------------------


{A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people AND Representatives they elect,[1] and affairs of state are a "public matter" (from Latin: res publica), rather than privately accommodated (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[2][1] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition}


POWER IS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
, MEANING THE LEGISLATURE OF STATES............THIS MAKES IT REPUBLICAN.

UNDER DEMOCRACY THE POWER IS HELD BY ONLY BY THE PEOPLE, THRU THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.

You just invented stuff out of whole cloth. That bit about "meaning the legislature of states" is stuff you pulled out of thin air and is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

The representatives of the people are anyone elected to represent the people. That could be a US Representative, a US Senator, a state Representative, a State Senator or even local people on a community level.

You are guilty of inventing crap up just to fit your own straight jacket you want to place the term REPUBLIC into. Sorry - but you were caught.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

You just invented stuff out of whole cloth. That bit about "meaning the legislature of states" is stuff you pulled out of thin air and is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

The representatives of the people are anyone elected to represent the people. That could be a US Representative, a US Senator, a state Representative, a State Senator or even local people on a community level.

You are guilty of inventing crap up just to fit your own straight jacket you want to place the term REPUBLIC into. Sorry - but you were caught.

oh, i have used your very on post!

{A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people AND Representatives they elect,[1] and affairs of state are a "public matter" (from Latin: res publica), rather than privately accommodated (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[2][1] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition}


again power is divided between the people and the representatives they elect..........this makes it republican.................2 entities hold power

democracy..power is held directly by the people, thru their representatives they elect...............this make it democratic..............................1 entity holds power
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

oh, i have used your very on post!

{A republic is a form of government in which power is held by the people AND Representatives they elect,[1] and affairs of state are a "public matter" (from Latin: res publica), rather than privately accommodated (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[2][1] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition}


again power is divided between the people and the representatives they elect..........this makes it republican.................2 entities hold power

democracy..power is held directly by the people, thru their representatives they elect...............this make it democratic..............................1 entity holds power

I have no idea what you are talking about. The definition I provided fits the US system to a tee. Power is held by the people and the representatives they elect.

You made up the bit about

democracy..power is held directly by the people, thru their representatives they elect...............this make it democratic...

you made it up. You invented it. You wrote it to fit your own skewed belief system.

I provided the source for my definitions. WHERE IS YOURS?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

I have no idea what you are talking about. The definition I provided fits the US system to a tee. Power is held by the people and the representatives they elect.

yes i see, you don't know what i am talking about, you never do when confronted with truth!
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

yes i see, you don't know what i am talking about, you never do when confronted with truth!

The definition I provided fits the US system to a tee. Power is held by the people and the representatives they elect.

You made up the bit about

democracy..power is held directly by the people, thru their representatives they elect...............this make it democratic...


you made it up. You invented it. You wrote it to fit your own skewed belief system.

you invented this yourself

again power is divided between the people and the representatives they elect..........this makes it republican.................2 entities hold power

democracy..power is held directly by the people, thru their representatives they elect...............this make it democratic..............................1 entity holds power

You made that up also. You pulled it out of your ...... head I would guess ..... and in doing so you pretend that you use the definition I provided but you only begin with it then deviate from it and change it to suit your own needs.

It is intellectual fraud.

I provided the source for my definitions. WHERE IS YOURS?
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

The definition I provided fits the US system to a tee. Power is held by the people and the representatives they elect.

You made up the bit about




you made it up. You invented it. You wrote it to fit your own skewed belief system.

you invented this yourself



You made that up also. You pulled it out of your ...... head I would guess ..... and in doing so you pretend that you use the definition I provided but you only begin with it then deviate from it and change it to suit your own needs.

It is intellectual fraud.

I provided the source for my definitions. WHERE IS YOURS?

poor, poor haymarket!

i know defeat for you is a bitter pill to swallow.

but if you continue to act as if you don't not know what is being taught to you, its just going to make it harder to get down.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

poor, poor haymarket!

i know defeat for you is a bitter pill to swallow.

but if you continue to act as if you don't not know what is being taught to you, its just going to make it harder to get down.

Are you going to answer my questions as to the verifiable sources for your claims about a republic and a democracy?

Do you think you can get away with the intellectual fraud of making it up and pretending that it was my definition that you used?

 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Are you going to answer my questions as to the verifiable sources for your claims about a republic and a democracy?

Do you think you can get away with the intellectual fraud of making it up and pretending that it was my definition that you used?


END!

you try to have a good day.;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

END!

you try to have a good day.;)

Herr Barkmann - this is what you inevitably do when you are boxed into a corner and you are challenged on your own statements to provide proof. You entire claim rests upon your ability to show where you are getting these so called definitions of things like REPUBLIC and DEMOCRACY.

You either go on a personal attack hoping that will deflect from the substance you failed to offer proof for or you declare victory and hightail it back to a safe haven where you hope nobody noticed you failed to provide any support for your claims.

I gave you the sources for my definitions of terms.
Why are you unable to provide the source for your definitions and the statements you make about them?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Herr Barkmann - this is what you inevitably do when you are boxed into a corner and you are challenged on your own statements to provide proof. You entire claim rests upon your ability to show where you are getting these so called definitions of things like REPUBLIC and DEMOCRACY.

You either go on a personal attack hoping that will deflect from the substance you failed to offer proof for or you declare victory and hightail it back to a safe haven where you hope nobody noticed you failed to provide any support for your claims.

I gave you the sources for my definitions of terms.
Why are you unable to provide the source for your definitions and the statements you make about them?

hay please stop trying ....our conversation is over on this subject, and you have been shown the error of your ways again.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

hay please stop trying ....our conversation is over on this subject, and you have been shown the error of your ways again.

When I saw that you had replied I was overjoyed thinking that you had decided to come out of your hidey hole and indentify your source for your definitions and statements built upon them. Instead, I found out it is recess time for you.

Which we all know is the Herr Barkmann flag of surrender.

While you are temporarily out of your hidey hole I gave you the sources for my definitions of terms. Why are you unable to provide the source for yours?
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

When I saw that you had replied I was overjoyed thinking that you had decided to come out of your hidey hole and indentify your source for your definitions and statements built upon them. Instead, I found out it is recess time for you.

Which we all know is the Herr Barkmann flag of surrender.

While you are temporarily out of your hidey hole I gave you the sources for my definitions of terms. Why are you unable to provide the source for yours?

hay, i know it hard for you accept your situation of error, but i have proven my points.
 
Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

hay, i know it hard for you accept your situation of error, but i have proven my points.

You cannot even say where you are getting your definitions from and where the statements based on the definitions come from.

You are making this up as you go along and have been exposed for a fraud.

I provided links to my sources. Why can't you do the same for your definitions of REPUBLIC and DEMOCRACY? Its because you made it up and pulled it out of ....... well .... thin air to be charitable.
 
Back
Top Bottom