View Poll Results: What's More Important - the "Right" to Discriminate, or Freedom From Discrimination?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Right to Discriminate

    38 33.04%
  • Freedom From Discrimination

    77 66.96%
Page 218 of 230 FirstFirst ... 118168208216217218219220228 ... LastLast
Results 2,171 to 2,180 of 2291

Thread: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discrimination?

  1. #2171
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,839

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    Really since the clauses of the constitution are what the are debating.

    to say their opinion is irrelevant .....is just your inability to deal with truth
    Your own twisted interpretation based on extremist politics IS NOT the truth.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #2172
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,839

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    if you would read instead of creating your own fantasy, you would know taxes are levied on trade, ...trade is a voluntary action, ..no one is forced to engage in trade



    Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
    By Library Answer Person On October 4, 2004 · Leave a Comment · In Government

    What are the respective differences between taxes, duties, imposts and excises? What does it mean concerning taxes when in the US Constitution it says “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”?

    This is from Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”. The glossary from the U.S. Treasury Dept’s International Trade Data System http://www.itds.treas.gov/printglossaryfrm.html defines duty as “a tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods,” imposts as “a tax, especially an import duty,” and excise taxes as “taxes on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges,” which, they explain, in current usage covers about everything besides income taxes.
    Not one word that you typed negates the reality that the Congress has the power of taxation. And that is the issue.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #2173
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,839

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    [QUOTE=ernst barkmann;1063248718]
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post


    really, ...taxes are apportioned among the states, not on the people.......if you read, you would know the 16th amendment it as direct tax on the people


    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

    the original constitution gives the federal government NO POWER OVER THE PEOPLE........there are only 4 classes of people in the constitution that federal laws, CAN PERTAIN TO.............pirates......counterfeiters.......t raitors, and [tax cheats...per the 16th...which deals with income taxes]

    its sad you profess the constitution, and yet, you don't know Constitution 101
    There is not a single US Supreme COurt decision regarding taxation and the power of the national government that agrees with your interpretation. Not one in over 220 years.

    That alone should tell you how extreme your views are when there is absolutely no support in law or in history for your views.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  4. #2174
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,009

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) agreed
    yes people are 100% free to discriminate as long as it doesn't break the law or violate rights
    The existence of a law don't not automatically indicate the existence or lack thereof of a right. The law at one point allowed slavery, which was in direct violation of the rights of the blacks of that era. So there is a major difference between "One has the legal ability to do this action" and "One has the right to do this action".
    2.) again i simply dont see any "right" to discriminate, people are free to but i dont see a right per say.
    As I noted it's not a right per se' but a natural and logical extension of both the personal property rights as well as freedom of association. If there was a "freedom from discrimination" it would have to be universal, and include things like hair color, height, weight, clothes style, etc. And indeed such is how it should be for interactions between any given citizen and the government, but not between any two given citizens.

    3.) as far as property right the same principles apply to us all. You have some freedoms the come with your private property but one still doesnt get to break the law or violate the rights of others
    Indeed, I have already taken ernst barkmann to task over this and his wording of his argument. I agree with his principle and what he wants to say, he just keeps undermining himself. The problem comes in that some people want to assign extra rights that would be in direct conflict with actual rights. That is not to say that actual rights don't have conflicts with each other, or at least seem to, but when you take the time to apply the logic, the conflicts really aren't there. I actually do have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Does that right absolve me of any consequences should others get hurt as a direct result of my speech? No. I've caused bodily harm to others thus violating their rights. Even if nobody had so much as twitched when I yelled "fire", thus their rights were not violated, the property owner could then throw me out. My free speech rights are not violated, and indeed he can do nothing to silence me as I am en route off of the property. Even if I refuse to leave he cannot violate (legally) my free speech rights and forcibly silence me. Likewise with freedom of association, one is free to choose who they will and will not associate with for whatever reason, be it personal or business.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #2175
    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: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Your own twisted interpretation based on extremist politics IS NOT the truth.
    so your saying that when the constitutional convention was taking place they didn't debate the clauses that were proposed?

    you hay have been beaten so bad in this thread, that now you shifted to not even addressing what is being said.

    haymarket-
    Last edited by Master PO; 05-08-14 at 09:49 AM.

  6. #2176
    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: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Not one word that you typed negates the reality that the Congress has the power of taxation. And that is the issue.

    this is out right stupidity, and a clear effort by you to corrupt the topic.........


    WE are NOT discussing the power to tax.....but the manner of who and how taxes are paid........

    to refresh your memory........


    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post

    You made up the crap about taxes placed on states as IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

    Your own twisted perversion of the Constitution is bad enough but when you have to resort to outright lying - that is way way way over the bounds of decency.


    article 1 section 2 clause 3--Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union
    , according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


    it CLEARLY says it right in the Constitution! Article I, Section 2, clause 3



    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    And after you do that, explain how a state can pay a tax without any people in that state paying the tax. This I gotta hear.
    read it again...This is from the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”. The glossary from the U.S. Treasury Dept’s International Trade Data System http://www.itds.treas.gov/printglossaryfrm.html defines duty as “a tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods,” imposts as “a tax, especially an import duty,” and excise taxes as “taxes on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges,” which, they explain, in current usage covers about everything besides income taxes.
    Last edited by Master PO; 05-08-14 at 09:56 AM.

  7. #2177
    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: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post

    There is not a single US Supreme COurt decision regarding taxation and the power of the national government that agrees with your interpretation. Not one in over 220 years.

    That alone should tell you how extreme your views are when there is absolutely no support in law or in history for your views.
    this is another corruption by you.......anyone who knows the basics of constitutional law knows, their were NO income taxes on the people, until the civil war, then it was repealed, because it was found not to be legal, the progressives on the late 1800's wanted to create an income tax , however the USSC court opinion on the subject was it was unconstitutional, and the progressives pushed for a constitutional, until they got it in 1913

    your arguments, are even worst lately, then they normally are!

  8. #2178
    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: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    did somebody say they did?
    if i don't have to like someone, and deal with someone.......then i can discriminate against them.

    for any power to apply FORCE TO ME, and make me deal with someone is unconstitutional......per 13th amendment

    when someone is discriminated against,...there is no natural rights violation.

  9. #2179
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    1.)The existence of a law don't not automatically indicate the existence or lack thereof of a right. The law at one point allowed slavery, which was in direct violation of the rights of the blacks of that era. So there is a major difference between "One has the legal ability to do this action" and "One has the right to do this action".


    2.) As I noted it's not a right per se' but a natural and logical extension of both the personal property rights as well as freedom of association.
    3.) If there was a "freedom from discrimination" it would have to be universal, and include things like hair color, height, weight, clothes style, etc. And indeed such is how it should be for interactions between any given citizen and the government, but not between any two given citizens.



    4.) Indeed, I have already taken ernst barkmann to task over this and his wording of his argument. I agree with his principle and what he wants to say, he just keeps undermining himself. The problem comes in that some people want to assign extra rights that would be in direct conflict with actual rights. That is not to say that actual rights don't have conflicts with each other, or at least seem to, but when you take the time to apply the logic, the conflicts really aren't there. I actually do have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Does that right absolve me of any consequences should others get hurt as a direct result of my speech? No. I've caused bodily harm to others thus violating their rights. Even if nobody had so much as twitched when I yelled "fire", thus their rights were not violated, the property owner could then throw me out. My free speech rights are not violated, and indeed he can do nothing to silence me as I am en route off of the property. Even if I refuse to leave he cannot violate (legally) my free speech rights and forcibly silence me.

    5.) Likewise with freedom of association, one is free to choose who they will and will not associate with for whatever reason, be it personal or business.
    1.) correct I agree but you simply doubled down on what I said with different verbiage.
    2.) and any subjective extension one makes ends at others rights
    3.) unless im misunderstanding your wording this is simply 100% false. it most certainly in no way would have to be "universal" on any level what so ever just like all rights arent now. SOme are very specific to what a person is receiving, going throw and where it happens. Now it would have to be equal as far as person to person meeting said criteria but not "universal" thats the wrong word.

    4.) I agree with this in general and its also another way to say what i already have rights end at violating others.

    5.) again this statement is not true as an absolute, only as a general statement and how one is applying "association"
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #2180
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,798

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    i1.)f i don't have to like someone, and deal with someone.......then i can discriminate against them.
    2.)for any power to apply FORCE TO ME, and make me deal with someone is unconstitutional......per 13th amendment
    3.)when someone is discriminated against,...there is no natural rights violation.
    1.) correct unless you violate thier rights/law
    2.) another thing nobody is discussing
    3.) you are free to have this opinion and think it matters


    I will ask you AGAIN
    you made the statement "no one has a right to be free, from people not liking you and people not wanting to deal with you."

    and i ask "did somebody say they did"?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Posting Permissions

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