• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
:lamo Yeah, it's really not English, per se!

You got that right. :peace

Its that libertarianese nonsense that they learn to speak in because if they came right out and used normal English it would sound so incredibly stupid that they could never seduce and entice the possible targets of their extremist ideological missionary work. :doh

Nobody except right wing libertarian true believers talks like that.
 
oh, do you support the EPA,NLRB, HUD, DEPT EDUCATION, to name a few....becuase they are all unconstitutional.

I am sure you are honest and trustworthy but could you please provide me with a verifiable link just so I know that all these things have been declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and its just not you saying something which is not supported by factual reality?
 
really, then i will ask a question of you, ..so you can find understanding.

can the people of the u.s. create a right to food?....which is a commodity

now according to you , they can, becuase you say people make there own rights.......so can they?

I see nothing in the US Constitution which would stop that amendment process. Article V is the final word on that and it says nothing about restrictions of that kind.
 
you seem to be losing track here, you said to me, and laughed, "why am i using u.s. code", and i told you its the law currently, becuase you stated a business is not a person, but the code says it is......so please keep up with me.
You don't read very much law, contracts, or anything else of that sort, do you?

:prof
Almost all complex laws and legal documents have a definitions section to show specific meanings for the given words in that section of the law or in that contract. This is standard practice used every day in a wide variety of legal documents both public and private. The specific definitions listed in those documents only apply to the documents in question. They do not apply to the world at large or ever the legal system at large, they are very specific to that document, which is why they are defined.

As such, until such time as we start discussing the specific laws as spelled out in Title 29, Subsection II, "National Labor Relations Board", your quoted definition from that section is invalid. If I honesty thought I you knew what you were doing by quoting it - and then insisting on it as well - I would also say you are being dishonest. But for now I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was an honest mistake on your part.


animals dont have rights per the constitution, however states can make laws re-guarding animals, in other words its not a federal duty.

"the federal government duties are few and defined, were as the states are vast"
Regardless of what laws are made for animals or how similar they are to laws for persons, animals are still not persons and neither are businesses.


Like I said, "only Libertarian ideals". I'm glad you agreed! :D
 
Last edited:
this

What is the crime of trading?

The "crime" is trading without a permission slip.

What is a permission slip?

A document that shows permission has been granted.

What does any of that nonsense have to do with having a victim or not?

Crimes have victims, no? So who are the victims?

Again, just talk like a normal person for heavens sake.

I googled CRIME OF TRADING and PERMISSION SLIP and got nothing helpful to explain this Von Mises Institute double talk. It was all about insider trading and needing mommies and daddies signature to go somewhere if I am a kiddie.

So the problem is in your terminology.

It's possible the problem is in your comprehension.
 
The "crime" is trading without a permission slip.



A document that shows permission has been granted.



Crimes have victims, no? So who are the victims?



It's possible the problem is in your comprehension.

A few days ago you recommended to me that I google for information. I wonder why your source does NOT recognize your jargon in using these whacko terms? And a greater wonder is why when you even pretend to explain it you still cannot do so?

Like I said - I do not speak Libertarianese. And I was forced to burn my copy of Translating Libertarianese Into Common English when it started to make some really evil moaning sounds on its own power. ;)
 
I see nothing in the US Constitution which would stop that amendment process. Article V is the final word on that and it says nothing about restrictions of that kind.


why have not such a right have already been created since you say the people make their own rights..

south africa has a constitution, which the people creats their own rights, how come america has not made any in its history?
 
why have not such a right have already been created since you say the people make their own rights..

I already answered your question. I have no idea why something which has not happened has not yet happened. I really do not do well in that sort of Twilight Zone fantasyland territory and prefer to stick with reality.
 
That's like saying no one is safer on the roads just because everyone has to carry a little plastic card with them when they drive. :lol:

It's the actions and requirements behind the piece of paper on the wall of a business or the little plastic card in the driver's pocket that makes the difference. You know that as well as I do.

Property owners have a right to place conditions on access to their property. It is perfectly reasonable that road owners might require that those using their roads show evidence of, say, competency.

However, I don't see how this relates to a law that makes it a "crime" to trade on one's own property unless one has permission.
 
You don't read very much law, contracts, or anything else of that sort, do you?

:prof
Almost all complex laws and legal documents have a definitions section to show specific meanings for the given words in that section of the law or in that contract. This is standard practice used every day in a wide variety of legal documents both public and private. The specific definitions listed in those documents only apply to the documents in question. They do not apply to the world at large or ever the legal system at large, they are very specific to that document, which is why they are defined.

As such, until such time as we start discussing the specific laws as spelled out in Title 29, Subsection II, "National Labor Relations Board", your quoted definition from that section is invalid. If I honesty thought I you knew what you were doing by quoting it - and then insisting on it as well - I would also say you are being dishonest. But for now I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was an honest mistake on your part.



excuse...lets start at the beginning to straighten you out.

you said" a business is not a person"

i said, "not true u.s.code says a business is a person"

you laughed and stated " what you going to use u.s.code now"

i stated, "its u.s.code, making business a person", and that all i was making clear to you that was all i was doing.

now you have gone over the edge into an area i never went into and telling me about laws.

so to state it to you again, i only stated a business can be a person per u.s.code..........and that's all!

so why the lesson in laws?

Regardless of what laws are made for animals or how similar they are to laws for persons, animals are still not persons and neither are businesses.

you will see i never said animal are like people, so why are you saying such a thing.....is this an attempt at confusion on your part, .....and a business is concerned a person under u.s.code 29 152....i dont like it but there it is.


Like I said, "only Libertarian ideals". I'm glad you agreed! :D

well its to bad individuals like yourself, who believe government can operate outside the constitution
 
I already answered your question. I have no idea why something which has not happened has not yet happened. I really do not do well in that sort of Twilight Zone fantasyland territory and prefer to stick with reality.


that is becuase people dont make their own right, if they did people who grant themselves rights to commodities, and take away rights of the minority and be tyrannical.

your understanding of the founding documents leaves one feeling so ashamed, of the american school system.
 
i stated to you before dumping and polluting is a crime, of state power, you can have your rights deprived.

there is no duty which defers to air, water and ground control in our constitution.... becuase we have a federal government not a national one.
Then you're just not doing your home, which is really no surprise.
 
Property owners have a right to place conditions on access to their property.
I never said they didn't. In fact, I've pointed out the same.


It is perfectly reasonable that road owners might require that those using their roads show evidence of, say, competency.
Road owners?!? Well, at least you've finally decided to accept communities (government) as owners. LOL!


However, I don't see how this relates to a law that makes it a "crime" to trade on one's own property unless one has permission.
You can sell your car in your driveway and no one will care. It's not a crime - try again.
 
excuse...lets start at the beginning to straighten you out.
you said" a business is not a person"
i said, "not true u.s.code says a business is a person"
you laughed and stated " what you going to use u.s.code now"
i stated, "its u.s.code, making business a person", and that all i was making clear to you that was all i was doing.
now you have gone over the edge into an area i never went into and telling me about laws.
so to state it to you again, i only stated a business can be a person per u.s.code..........and that's all!
so why the lesson in laws?
:prof
The only part of the US Code to which that specific definition applies is Title 29, Subchapter II, "National Labor Relations Board". It has no other application anywhere else in law or in the world except in that subsection of Title 29. We are not talking about that subsection so your cited definition does not apply.

Let's try this. Have you ever read the opening of a contract or court document where they say use the terms "party of the first part" and "party of the second part"? Those "parties" are identified at the beginning of the document and used throughout the document as a specific identifier. Does that mean that since one piece of law or one contract names "John Doe of Podunk USA" as "party of the first part" that ALL documents and laws that say "party of the first part" now refer to "John Doe of Podunk USA"??? What obviously silliness. :lol: The same it true for your definition. It only applies to the section of law where the definition is given and applied no where else - including this discussion.

Now you know what the lesson in laws and this will be the last one.


you will see i never said animal are like people, so why are you saying such a thing.....is this an attempt at confusion on your part, .....and a business is concerned a person under u.s.code 29 152....i dont like it but there it is.
No, a business is not a 'person' unless we're discussing Chapter 29, Subchapter II, "National Labor Relations Board".
Is that what we're talking about, the National Labor Relations Board as it pertains to Title 29, Subchapter II?


well its to bad individuals like yourself, who believe government can operate outside the constitution
It's too bad individuals like yourself believe only your opinions are correct.
 
that is becuase people dont make their own right, if they did people who grant themselves rights to commodities, and take away rights of the minority and be tyrannical.
Of course people make their own rights, except those conditions I mentioned earlier, which all living beings share.

Do you think the Bill of Rights dropped from the Heavens?!? :lol: All those people you've been quoting and numerous others both before and after them, dreamed them up to counter and control what they thought were wrongs in their society. Luckily, our Founders understood that even they could not predict the future and built a system that could be changed to meet the demands of that future. Every single one of our Founders was not only a rebel, they were also liberals, throwing away the old laws and injustices in favor of a better, more equal system of laws for all. Their posterity have changed the adjusted those original laws as needed to retain that sense of justice and equality. It's sad so many oppose it.
 
Last edited:
Of course people make their own rights, except those conditions I mentioned earlier, which all living beings share.

Do you think the Bill of Rights dropped from the Heavens?!? :lol: All those people you've been quoting and numerous others both before and after them, dreamed them up to counter and control what they thought were wrongs in their society. Luckily, our Founders understood that even they could not predict the future and built a system that could be changed to meet the demands of that future. Every single one of our Founders was not only a rebel, they were also liberals, throwing away the old laws and injustices in favor of a better, more equal system of laws for all. Their posterity have changed the adjusted those original laws as needed to retain that sense of justice and equality. It's sad so many oppose it.

It seems that when it comes to rights, some people have never grown out of the Tooth Fairy experience as small children. The idea that some magical deity gives you things - like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Gods on high in Mt. Olympus bestowing personal gifts upon mankind. People have a right to believe in such things but rights come from two very clear developments

1 - enough people in a society decide that they want a certain behavior protected as a right,
2 - they exert enough power to force the government to recognize that government as a right

That is how all of our rights came to be. As fanciful as it is to think of some great 250 foot deity sitting up on high dispensing rights like rain and snow, its just a belief that was constructed to enable people to get their minds wrapped around something that is fairly simple when you get down to it.
 
of course people make their own rights, except those conditions i mentioned earlier, which all living beings share.

Do you think the bill of rights dropped from the heavens?!? :lol: All those people you've been quoting and numerous others both before and after them, dreamed them up to counter and control what they thought were wrongs in their society. Luckily, our founders understood that even they could not predict the future and built a system that could be changed to meet the demands of that future. Every single one of our founders was not only a rebel, they were also liberals, throwing away the old laws and injustices in favor of a better, more equal system of laws for all. Their posterity have changed the adjusted those original laws as needed to retain that sense of justice and equality. It's sad so many oppose it.


lol....
 
:prof
the only part of the us code to which that specific definition applies is title 29, subchapter ii, "national labor relations board". It has no other application anywhere else in law or in the world except in that subsection of title 29. We are not talking about that subsection so your cited definition does not apply.

Let's try this. Have you ever read the opening of a contract or court document where they say use the terms "party of the first part" and "party of the second part"? Those "parties" are identified at the beginning of the document and used throughout the document as a specific identifier. Does that mean that since one piece of law or one contract names "john doe of podunk usa" as "party of the first part" that all documents and laws that say "party of the first part" now refer to "john doe of podunk usa"??? What obviously silliness. :lol: The same it true for your definition. It only applies to the section of law where the definition is given and applied no where else - including this discussion.

Now you know what the lesson in laws and this will be the last one.






No, a business is not a 'person' unless we're discussing chapter 29, subchapter ii, "national labor relations board".
Is that what we're talking about, the national labor relations board as it pertains to title 29, subchapter ii?


It's too bad individuals like yourself believe only your opinions are correct.


lets see now, the constitution states that (citizens) can petition our government, and what do we have corporations, unions, petitioning it, -------------->well what do you know about that!
 
Last edited:
Then you're just not doing your home, which is really no surprise.

really, Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
 
lets see now, the constitution states that (citizens) can petition our government, and what do we have corporations, unions, petitioning it, -------------->well what do you know about that!
Are we back to talking about animals being people, too? :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom