• 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!

The right winger doth protest too much, methinks

MrWonka said:
False. On the left we simply understand what concepts like free speech and free religion actually men. Free speech does not mean there are zero consequences to speech simply that those consequences cannot come from the government. Free religion does not mean the freedom to impose religion on others it means the freedom to worship on your own.
Click to expand...

Hate speech is becoming a cornerstone for the left. You jumped over the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin.

HAHAHA!! Tell that to the two front runners for the republican nomination.
Click to expand...

https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_gay_rights You realize you just overplayed your bias?

Not everyone elses. Just those who lack the ability to think rationally and rely on ancient laws to support their nonsensical positions. Rational thought can allow people to come to agreeable conclusions. Laws are used to force conclusions on those even when they disagree. There are times when that must be done, but it would be best to avoid it if we don't need to.
Click to expand...

You do not have the right to impose your moral code on ANYONE else.


If you've actually read the Federalist papers which I have unlike so many people who seem to cite them all the time you'd know that the Federalists felt a strong federal government was necessary in order to prevent smaller radical factions from gaining control over smaller states. You are correct in that this is a pact, however it's not one that has been ignored by the Fed, it has been ignored by the various factions that are trying to gain control over states and turn them into radical monstrosities. They don't want to admit that they are radical and that their ideas are contradictory to the very founding principles of the nation.
Click to expand...

That is the most distorted interpretation of the 10th I've ever heard. States can be very radical, they are supposed to examine the laws of the furthest left and furthest right for validity and feasibility and results. They are the laboratories of democracy, they pass laws at the extremes in response to the people as they are more responsible to the people than the Federal government is. This is intended. The 10th is in no way intended to limit the states, it is intended to limit the Federal government. Even the Federalists were strong believers in the states. The tenth was used as the single strongest argument from the Federalists for the passage of the Constitution to protect states. I have no idea what you have been reading, but its wrong.
 
clownboy said:
No, you have no "right to know" (yet another plank you rely upon that's not enumerated in the Constitution). If you want to know that, the onus is on YOU to find out.
Click to expand...

Companies putting poison in their food without telling their customers isn't expressly forbidden by the constitution, I guess that makes it ok right? If you want to know if there's poison in your food or not, the onus is on YOU to find out, right?
 
MrWonka said:
Why does it always seem like those who reference the constitution in their arguments seem to be the ones who have the least understanding of that document and it's meaning? It's almost like they don't know how to form a rational argument that stands on it's own so they try to jump right to a legal document and depend upon an equivocating definition of terms to justify their position. I've noticed this heavily in people like Ted Cruz who constantly refers to himself as a "strict constitutional conservative" yet apparently has no understanding of how the constitution actually protects a woman's right to privacy. I hear it in gun enthusiasts who want to jump right to the 2nd amendment, but yet cannot really explain why "nuclear arms" shouldn't be included in the "right to bear arms." I hear it in ultra Christians who want to point to religious freedom to justify discrimination. They struggle to justify why baking a cake is actually hurting them, or why gays deserve this treatment. Another example I saw today was this thread claiming that both parties primary processes are unconstitutional despite there being nothing whatsoever in the constitution outlining anything about how primaries are supposed to work.

Is it just me, or do you not tend to hear this crap from liberals and other more intelligent types? They tend to focus on whether it actually makes rational sense to let people own assault weapons rather than what a 200 year old document states. They tend to focus on whether it's right or wrong to allow gays to marry and to ban discrimination rather than whether the law technically states it or not. Laws after all should be derived off of what makes rational sense, not the other way around. You can't make an irrational idea rational by pointing to a law regardless of what the law says. It just seems to me that those who have run out of good justifications for their positions tend to be the first to jump to legal statutes hoping that if they can convince people that the law says what they think it does it won't matter if what they are advocating is ridiculous or not.
Click to expand...

I guess this story slipped past your narrow view of things.

Jury awards $240,000 to Muslim men fired for refusing to deliver alcohol - CBS News

You get your panties in a wad over a cake?
 
MrWonka said:
Sure it does. Consumers are members of the public. Don't you think I should have a right to know if I'm trading with someone who treats other human beings like second class citizens before I do business with them?
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution might you find anything about your right to know who you're trading with? Do you actually think that the government is capable of informing you about who you are trading with?
 
WCH said:
liberals and other more intelligent types..

LMAO

Pride cometh before a fall.
Click to expand...

I had to laugh at that one myself. Extreme ignorance is sad in most cases, but this one was one was almost "Mel Brooks" funny.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Companies putting poison in their food without telling their customers isn't expressly forbidden by the constitution, I guess that makes it ok right? If you want to know if there's poison in your food or not, the onus is on YOU to find out, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is on you to be a good consumer. You know there's rat droppings in your food, right? The feds allow up to a certain amount. Chocolate, the reason some are allergic to it, well they're not allergic to the chocolate, but to the roach pieces it contains. By law, that's allowed.

The laws protecting our food supply do not always have their origin at the federal level.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I guess this story slipped past your narrow view of things.

Jury awards $240,000 to Muslim men fired for refusing to deliver alcohol - CBS News

You get your panties in a wad over a cake?
Click to expand...

Hmm. So Muslim's cannot be made to perform their job tasks with a business serving the public when their religion objects to it, but when the same situation is applied to Christians they are forced to perform their job tasks and heavily fined?

So who says that Christians aren't under attack?

I guess businesses aren't going to be inclined to hire Muslims.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Companies putting poison in their food without telling their customers isn't expressly forbidden by the constitution, I guess that makes it ok right? If you want to know if there's poison in your food or not, the onus is on YOU to find out, right?
Click to expand...

If you follow the US Constitution, that would be a power reserved for the individual States.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, it is on you to be a good consumer. You know there's rat droppings in your food, right? The feds allow up to a certain amount. Chocolate, the reason some are allergic to it, well they're not allergic to the chocolate, but to the roach pieces it contains. By law, that's allowed.

The laws protecting our food supply do not always have their origin at the federal level.
Click to expand...

I guess there's no point in arguing with someone who thinks people don't have a right to not be poisoned or be informed about whats in their food. Ridiculous.
 
MrWonka said:
Not based on criteria which were endowed by our creator. We believe that all men are created equal in the eyes of our creator so treating people unequally based on the way they were created would be to go against the primary Axiom that America was founded upon. It therefore seem silly to not have a law against it.
Click to expand...
nm...
 
Last edited:
If all men (and women) are created equal, why are some charged with felonies when they loot and burn while others are exalted? Did some think vigilantism is OK?
 
clownboy said:
Everything you've posted thus far demonstrates that you have never read the Federalist Papers. NONE of those involved in their writing argued for a strong federal government. You can counter this by telling us which FP and quoting from it. I really want to see you try to name the founder who wrote advocating for a strong central government.

The truth is you didn't know what Madison v Marbury was about, you haven't read or understood the Federalist Papers and it's doubtful you even know what they are or who penned them. Let's see how quickly you can google to catch up.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Hamilton definitely argued for a strong federal government....as did Madison and Jay. They didn't call it the "Federalist Papers" for no reason.
 
Henrin said:
That's crap. If someone wants to become a baker and make baked goods for a living they have the right to decide who they will serve.
Click to expand...


A business that uses and depends on infrastructure paid for by the taxpaying public and depends on the public for it's profit, doesn't have a right to discriminate against the public.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Hamilton definitely argued for a strong federal government....as did Madison and Jay. They didn't call it the "Federalist Papers" for no reason.
Click to expand...

Rebuttal: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Rebuttal: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
Click to expand...

Rebuttal: The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
 
Moot said:
Rebuttal: The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

You do get Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution giving states the right to decide for themselves which laws are constitutional and unconstitutional? Mind you this is after the Supremacy clause issues. This argues that Madison believed states would make the decisions the Supreme Court makes today. Which would grant for a Federal government as beholden to the states as the states would be to the Fed because legislation would need to pass muster with every state, not just at the Federal level.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You do get Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution giving states the right to decide for themselves which laws are constitutional and unconstitutional? Mind you this is after the Supremacy clause issues. This argues that Madison believed states would make the decisions the Supreme Court makes today. Which would grant for a Federal government as beholden to the states as the states would be to the Fed because legislation would need to pass muster with every state, not just at the Federal level.
Click to expand...
Define "resolution."

Madison argued that the Virginia resolution did not give a state the right to decide the unconstitutionality of a federal law for itself. Madison wrote:

"But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined."

Madison explained that when the Virginia Legislature passed the Virginia Resolution, the "interposition" it contemplated was "a concurring and cooperating interposition of the States, not that of a single State.…[T]he Legislature expressly disclaimed the idea that a declaration of a State, that a law of the U. S. was unconstitutional, had the effect of annulling the law."[17]

Madison went on to argue that the purpose of the Virginia Resolution had been to elicit cooperation by the other states in seeking change through means provided in the Constitution, such as amendment...


The Supreme Court rejected the compact theory in several nineteenth century cases, undermining the basis for the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. In cases such as Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,[20] McCulloch v. Maryland,[21] and Texas v. White,[22] the Court asserted that the Constitution was established directly by the people, rather than being a compact among the states. Abraham Lincoln also rejected the compact theory saying the Constitution was a binding contract among the states and no contract can be changed unilaterally by one party...​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

Had it been known at the time that Vice President, Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Kentucky Resolution, he could've been tried for treason.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Define "resolution."

Madison argued that the Virginia resolution did not give a state the right to decide the unconstitutionality of a federal law for itself. Madison wrote:

"But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined."

Madison explained that when the Virginia Legislature passed the Virginia Resolution, the "interposition" it contemplated was "a concurring and cooperating interposition of the States, not that of a single State.…[T]he Legislature expressly disclaimed the idea that a declaration of a State, that a law of the U. S. was unconstitutional, had the effect of annulling the law."[17]

Madison went on to argue that the purpose of the Virginia Resolution had been to elicit cooperation by the other states in seeking change through means provided in the Constitution, such as amendment...


The Supreme Court rejected the compact theory in several nineteenth century cases, undermining the basis for the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. In cases such as Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,[20] McCulloch v. Maryland,[21] and Texas v. White,[22] the Court asserted that the Constitution was established directly by the people, rather than being a compact among the states. Abraham Lincoln also rejected the compact theory saying the Constitution was a binding contract among the states and no contract can be changed unilaterally by one party...​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

Had it been known at the time that Vice President, Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Kentucky Resolution, he could've been tried for treason.
Click to expand...

It was. If states were going to ignore laws and argue about nullification it is a method for them to decide for themselves what was and was not constitutional for them. Yes they were undermined until 1850 when it became useful to dust the laws off and attempt to use them as a way to blunt slavery.

The fact Jefferson could have been tried for treason was irrelevant.
 
MrWonka said:
Why does it always seem like those who reference the constitution in their arguments seem to be the ones who have the least understanding of that document and it's meaning? It's almost like they don't know how to form a rational argument that stands on it's own so they try to jump right to a legal document and depend upon an equivocating definition of terms to justify their position. I've noticed this heavily in people like Ted Cruz who constantly refers to himself as a "strict constitutional conservative" yet apparently has no understanding of how the constitution actually protects a woman's right to privacy. I hear it in gun enthusiasts who want to jump right to the 2nd amendment, but yet cannot really explain why "nuclear arms" shouldn't be included in the "right to bear arms." I hear it in ultra Christians who want to point to religious freedom to justify discrimination. They struggle to justify why baking a cake is actually hurting them, or why gays deserve this treatment. Another example I saw today was this thread claiming that both parties primary processes are unconstitutional despite there being nothing whatsoever in the constitution outlining anything about how primaries are supposed to work.

Is it just me, or do you not tend to hear this crap from liberals and other more intelligent types? They tend to focus on whether it actually makes rational sense to let people own assault weapons rather than what a 200 year old document states. They tend to focus on whether it's right or wrong to allow gays to marry and to ban discrimination rather than whether the law technically states it or not. Laws after all should be derived off of what makes rational sense, not the other way around. You can't make an irrational idea rational by pointing to a law regardless of what the law says. It just seems to me that those who have run out of good justifications for their positions tend to be the first to jump to legal statutes hoping that if they can convince people that the law says what they think it does it won't matter if what they are advocating is ridiculous or not.
Click to expand...

Let me preface this by stating I certainly can find issues with Republicans and their views on the Constitution. However, Liberals have the exact same viewpoints that you seemingly left out. As far as Ted Cruz is concerned, he is not a Constitutionalists, he is a theocrat. The second amendment does not apply to nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are in no way a legitimate means of self defense. If you set off a nuke while defending your home, you and the rest of your neighborhood will be dead as well. I also have no issue with believing businesses should be required to treat everyone equally if they are dealing with the public sector.

Let us now bring up some examples from the left/progressives that are as outrageous. The left often uses equal treatment type clauses in an attempt to violate free speech activity. Whether this be speaking out against Muslims, or trying to arrest people for tweets. This is as ridiculous as the right when it comes to these things. The left also has serious problems in regards to giving rights to non citizens(illegal immigrants) as if they were United States citizens.

There are many problems on the right as there are on the left. There are tons of idiots in both parties. Simply stating that left wing people don't have similar, invalid opinions on things is simply false.If you would like, we can discuss more of the insane ideas that the left upholds in further posts.
 
ajn678, why must every business that deals with the public sector treat everyone equally? Does treating everyone equally mean an equality of result or an equality of opportunity or both?
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
Why does it always seem like those who reference the constitution in their arguments seem to be the ones who have the least understanding of that document and it's meaning? It's almost like they don't know how to form a rational argument that stands on it's own so they try to jump right to a legal document and depend upon an equivocating definition of terms to justify their position. I've noticed this heavily in people like Ted Cruz who constantly refers to himself as a "strict constitutional conservative" yet apparently has no understanding of how the constitution actually protects a woman's right to privacy. I hear it in gun enthusiasts who want to jump right to the 2nd amendment, but yet cannot really explain why "nuclear arms" shouldn't be included in the "right to bear arms." I hear it in ultra Christians who want to point to religious freedom to justify discrimination. They struggle to justify why baking a cake is actually hurting them, or why gays deserve this treatment. Another example I saw today was this thread claiming that both parties primary processes are unconstitutional despite there being nothing whatsoever in the constitution outlining anything about how primaries are supposed to work.

Is it just me, or do you not tend to hear this crap from liberals and other more intelligent types? They tend to focus on whether it actually makes rational sense to let people own assault weapons rather than what a 200 year old document states. They tend to focus on whether it's right or wrong to allow gays to marry and to ban discrimination rather than whether the law technically states it or not. Laws after all should be derived off of what makes rational sense, not the other way around. You can't make an irrational idea rational by pointing to a law regardless of what the law says. It just seems to me that those who have run out of good justifications for their positions tend to be the first to jump to legal statutes hoping that if they can convince people that the law says what they think it does it won't matter if what they are advocating is ridiculous or not.
Click to expand...

Biased much?

You already say you believe liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.

That little bit of completely biased thinking tells me you do not care to listen to any discussion or debate about the subject because you already believe conservatives to be stupid and of lesser intelligence.

That kind of thinking and speech immediately kills any meaningful dialog.

Most people do not like to talk to anyone sitting on a high horse.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
Biased much?

You already say you believe liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.
Click to expand...
Just because you agree with something doesn't mean it's because of bias. It may actually just be the truth.


RetiredNSmilin said:
Most people do not like to talk to anyone sitting on a high horse.
Click to expand...

Actually, people generally seem to love talking to someone like that because they want to try and knock them off. Good luck with that.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
Biased much?

You already say you believe liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.

That little bit of completely biased thinking tells me you do not care to listen to any discussion or debate about the subject because you already believe conservatives to be stupid and of lesser intelligence.

That kind of thinking and speech immediately kills any meaningful dialog.

Most people do not like to talk to anyone sitting on a high horse.
Click to expand...

Actually, studies show that as one becomes more educated they (generally) become more liberal. Further, studies show that conservatives tend to have a lower IQ than do liberals. (To be clear, this does not mean you can raise your IQ by becoming more liberal.)
 
jkennedy said:
Actually, studies show that as one becomes more educated they (generally) become more liberal. Further, studies show that conservatives tend to have a lower IQ than do liberals. (To be clear, this does not mean you can raise your IQ by becoming more liberal.)
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Here we see a good example of uneducated behavior.

Satoshi Kanazawa, a libertarian researcher, from the London School of Economics and Political Science, recently wrote a paper that published by the journal Social Psychology Quarterly. The paper investigates not only whether conservatives are dumber than liberals but also why that might be so.

The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. ... What's new in Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values--that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom