• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
really?..........how about your look a the court case.... drama.
Did you read the Civil Rights Act cases and accept them? Apparently not, since we're having this conversation. :roll:
 
I did not make a business a person, and you didn't, the constitution didn't...the government did!
And the government made the Civil Rights Act, too. You ignore it so why stop there?
 
Did you read the Civil Rights Act cases and accept them? Apparently not, since we're having this conversation. :roll:

the constitution does not apply to people or business...I have stated THAT BEFORE

how can a government get charged with a civil rights violation, and get not fine or jail time.

but a business or citizen be subject the a civil rights violation[not possible under the constitution] and get fined or jail....not possible, its not equal treatment under the law.

because governments violate constitutional law.

business or people, commit a crime, not a violation of the constitution.
 
Last edited:
government cannot create rights...they can only create a privilege, and it can be abolished at any time.

rights are higher than a privilege.
Government can't create people, either.
 
the constitution does not apply to people or business...I have stated THAT BEFORE
how can a government get charged with a civil rights violation, and get not fine or jail time.
but a business or citizen be subject the a civil rights violation[not possible under the constitution] and get fined or jail....not possible, its not equal treatment under the law.
because governments violate constitutional law.
business or people, commit a crime, not a violation of the constitution.
I have seen nothing showing that businesses are protected under all parts of the constitution. In fact, you dodged the very obvious exclusion of business from constitutional protection that I pointed out, testifying against one's self.
 
I have seen nothing showing that businesses are protected under all parts of the constitution. In fact, you dodged the very obvious exclusion of business from constitutional protection that I pointed out, testifying against one's self.

Limited Rights as a "Person:" Because of these two main facets of the corporate form, several rights that we would consider to be individual rights have been given to corporations. For example, corporations can own property and other assets, can buy, sell, or lease property, and have very broad commercial rights so that the corporation can conduct business independent of an individual person and maintain continuity. Because corporations can own assets, they can pay off their debts, thus, it's also ties to limited liability.

Corporations also have limited noncommercial rights like the right not to incriminate one's self which goes along with being able to be sued. Likewise, corporations have limited fourth amendment rights against searches and seizures and limited first amendment rights (although this is broadening), which are interwoven with the corporation's ability to own property and incur debt. This also continues to encourage corporate business decisions, although some doubt the latest reach of first amendment rights in Citizens United v. FEC, the latest Supreme Court case on this issue. .
 
you are correct drugs are not in the constitution, although the government has made it illegal, it still not a duty of the federal government.

I am discussing what the constitution and what rights are, per the documents, I am not discussing what government has done, is doing because 99% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.........per the constitution they have only 18 powers.
For the most part, I agree. There are some places where I simply don't agree with the constitution, but I still support it over the vast majority of what our government does.

your correct the nanny state is here and been around a long time...and I believe its going to end one day, because sooner or later you run out of others people money.

the way to get rid of the nanny state is to end democracy and return to republican government.

democracy is what allows the nanny state to be created and grow.

ask this question ...why to liberals, cry democracy and beg for more of it........like the direct vote for president.

democracy is the most vile form of government- james Madison
Direct democracy is a horrible form of government, but a republic is only as good as our representatives. Democracy or not, the government will always be made up of self-serving blowhards. I think that our voting system is the biggest flaw. A change to a system that allows you to rank candidates, rather than just voting for one of them to win, would eliminate the "wasted vote". By reducing tactical voting, there is a good chance that it would break up our two party system and give independents a real chance. Here's one of the better known systems; Kemeny
I ask you to read the founders, federalist 10, 39, 47 63 these are very important.

also the works of john adams, were he speaks out against representive democracy as being a terrible form of government.
Of course. I might not always agree with you or the founders, but I still respect you and them.
 
Limited Rights as a "Person:" Because of these two main facets of the corporate form, several rights that we would consider to be individual rights have been given to corporations. For example, corporations can own property and other assets, can buy, sell, or lease property, and have very broad commercial rights so that the corporation can conduct business independent of an individual person and maintain continuity. Because corporations can own assets, they can pay off their debts, thus, it's also ties to limited liability.

Corporations also have limited noncommercial rights like the right not to incriminate one's self which goes along with being able to be sued. Likewise, corporations have limited fourth amendment rights against searches and seizures and limited first amendment rights (although this is broadening), which are interwoven with the corporation's ability to own property and incur debt. This also continues to encourage corporate business decisions, although some doubt the latest reach of first amendment rights in Citizens United v. FEC, the latest Supreme Court case on this issue. .
Interesting that companies are often forced to hand over documents, especially internal communications. Sure seems like the corporate equivalent to testifying against one's self to me.


Of course, persons still aren't "artificial" or have "limited" rights as outlined above, which obviously shows businesses aren't persons. I'm glad you decided to dispense with that BS.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that companies are often forced to hand over documents, especially internal communications. Sure seems like the corporate equivalent to testifying against one's self to me.


Of course, persons still aren't "artificial" or have "limited" rights as outlined above, which obviously shows businesses aren't persons. I'm glad you decided to dispense with that BS.

believe what you will.

the statement says one thing ,you say the other ......and proclaim your right...........strange!
 
Last edited:
believe what you will.

the statement says one thing ,you say the other ......and proclaim your right...........strange!
What I found strange is that you would go running to the USSC to prove a point while simultaneously denying a whole host of other decisions they've made in relation to the Civil Rights Act. :lol:
 
What I found strange is that you would go running to the USSC to prove a point while simultaneously denying a whole host of other decisions they've made in relation to the Civil Rights Act. :lol:

wrong.........i an simply stating what the government has done.

i am sure you should know by now that 99 % of what the federal government is doing is unconstitutional, from my point of view.
 
wrong.........i an simply stating what the government has done.

i am sure you should know by now that 99 % of what the federal government is doing is unconstitutional, from my point of view.
You used it to try to support your claim that a business is a person, just as you tried mis-quoting US Code for the same purpose. Saying you're "simply stating" is dishonest at best, considering the post quotes that accompany those responses.


I'm surprised you leave 1% open. :lol:

Not accepting that 99% is the downfall of your kind of Libertarianism. No one wants a world controlled by the corporations except you guys. You should read more about our founders views on the Dutch East India Company.
 
You used it to try to support your claim that a business is a person, just as you tried mis-quoting US Code for the same purpose. Saying you're "simply stating" is dishonest at best, considering the post quotes that accompany those responses.


I'm surprised you leave 1% open. :lol:

Not accepting that 99% is the downfall of your kind of Libertarianism. No one wants a world controlled by the corporations except you guys. You should read more about our founders views on the Dutch East India Company.

does a cockroach have rights.....no

does a hammer have rights....no

does a person have rights....yes

if the cockroach is killed, the hammer destroyed are they consequences for those actions ...no....becuase there are no rights connected to them.

but if a person is killed /destroyed, there are consequences for that death /destruction ....yes...becuase government is going to want answers, becuase they are concerned about that life and liberty which was taken.

if a person had no rights at all like the cockroach or the hammer, his death or theft from him would have no consequences, becuase what is government there to secure, since he would have no rights at all.

when a person owns a business, he has his rights, one being his property rights, to protect himself from theft, fraud, from those who would seek to do him damage.

however a corporation which is not owned one person, but many shareholders.... so instead i looking at all the rights of the individuals of the corporation. the corporation is treated has as a person... one entity, to protect it from theft, fraud, and from those who would seek to do the entity damage.....this is to insecure those assets of the corporation, like property, money, and the livelihoods of the people who own and work for the corporation cannot be destroyed or property stolen from them.

if a corporation was not considered a person it would have no rights, it would be like the cockroach or the hammer, and fall prey to anyone to sought to take advantage of it, with no consequences.

U.S CODE 29 152 states a business, union, corporation is a person, being a person does not begin when its in bankruptcy, but is a person while it is in business.

as to the 1%, government has 18 powers..its impossible to make it 100%

government is limited as the founders have stated, but it is you that reject that........and for libertarians....no one wants a word controlled by the government, but in the same breath no one wants a world controlled by corporations.

what we do want is for people to have their liberty, and when a person or business violates the rights of another person or business, then we what government to act against those who commit that violation, however we dont want a world where government tells us we cant do things, which do not violate the rights of others or cause no damage to property.
 
Last edited:
U.S CODE 29 152 states a business, union, corporation is a person, being a person does not begin when its in bankruptcy, but is a person while it is in business.
I've got a document in my safe that says I'm the "Party of the First Part". Does that mean all documents that have "Party of the First Part" in them refer to me??

Your reference is only good in that sub-chapter of US Code, which is about the National Labor Relations Board - not part of this discussion. You've been told and shown this simple fact of law may times in this thread. For your continued misuse of this reference and your obvious dishonesty in repeated use of it you get 3/3 ...

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
what we do want is for people to have their liberty, and when a person or business violates the rights of another person or business, then we what government to act against those who commit that violation, however we dont want a world where government tells us we cant do things, which do not violate the rights of others or cause no damage to property.
And yet, if everyone denied you service of any kind and also denied you a job - both of which are legal in your system - you would have to become a thief just to live. Not a world that I want to be a part of, thanks.
 
does a cockroach have rights.....no
does a hammer have rights....no
does a person have rights....yes
if the cockroach is killed, the hammer destroyed are they consequences for those actions ...no....becuase there are no rights connected to them.
but if a person is killed /destroyed, there are consequences for that death /destruction ....yes...becuase government is going to want answers, becuase they are concerned about that life and liberty which was taken.
if a person had no rights at all like the cockroach or the hammer, his death or theft from him would have no consequences, becuase what is government there to secure, since he would have no rights at all.
when a person owns a business, he has his rights, one being his property rights, to protect himself from theft, fraud, from those who would seek to do him damage.
however a corporation which is not owned one person, but many shareholders.... so instead i looking at all the rights of the individuals of the corporation. the corporation is treated has as a person... one entity, to protect it from theft, fraud, and from those who would seek to do the entity damage.....this is to insecure those assets of the corporation, like property, money, and the livelihoods of the people who own and work for the corporation cannot be destroyed or property stolen from them.
if a corporation was not considered a person it would have no rights, it would be like the cockroach or the hammer, and fall prey to anyone to sought to take advantage of it, with no consequences.
as to the 1%, government has 18 powers..its impossible to make it 100%
government is limited as the founders have stated, but it is you that reject that........and for libertarians....no one wants a word controlled by the government, but in the same breath no one wants a world controlled by corporations.
Animals have "rights" under law, too. I believe chimps and cetaceans are intelligent but I wouldn't call a chimpanzee, a dolphin, or a whale a person. Once again your argument fails.
 
And yet, if everyone denied you service of any kind and also denied you a job - both of which are legal in your system - you would have to become a thief just to live. Not a world that I want to be a part of, thanks.

you do not have a right to services or a job...you only have a right to seek them.

you wish to act on emotion, and not what is lawful.
 
Animals have "rights" under law, too. I believe chimps and cetaceans are intelligent but I wouldn't call a chimpanzee, a dolphin, or a whale a person. Once again your argument fails.


no it does not fail, if a person had no rights at all.........then what is government's purpose?

governments duty is to secure the rights of the people..........."That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Madison-- "if men where angels no government would be necessary"

being without any rights is being like the [two things] i mentioned.

i can be killed or stolen from without consequences, because i have no rights.

a business is treated as a person, becuase it has to have rights, or it is can be taken advantage of without consequences of law.

can i kill anyone of those animals in the wild you mentioned...yes i can..............can i kill them in an environment created by someone...no becuase are property of someone.
 
Last edited:
I've got a document in my safe that says I'm the "Party of the First Part". Does that mean all documents that have "Party of the First Part" in them refer to me??

Your reference is only good in that sub-chapter of US Code, which is about the National Labor Relations Board - not part of this discussion. You've been told and shown this simple fact of law may times in this thread. For your continued misuse of this reference and your obvious dishonesty in repeated use of it you get 3/3 ...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

are you going to tell me, that the only time a business is a person is when it files for bankruptcy......and before that its not a person?

that is a ridiculous argument!
 
you do not have a right to services or a job...you only have a right to seek them.

you wish to act on emotion, and not what is lawful.
I'm talking about this theoretical world you would build. When the constitution was written there was always the commons where a man could live and eat. The commons - at least for that function - doesn't exist, anymore.
 
are you going to tell me, that the only time a business is a person is when it files for bankruptcy......and before that its not a person?

that is a ridiculous argument!
That has nothing to do with your continued misuse of the US Code Title 29, which specifically states: "When used in this subchapter ..." before it states the definitions for the subchapter. Your misuse of that reference is dishonest at best.
 
no it does not fail, if a person had no rights at all.........then what is government's purpose?

governments duty is to secure the rights of the people..........."That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Madison-- "if men where angels no government would be necessary"

being without any rights is being like the [two things] i mentioned.

i can be killed or stolen from without consequences, because i have no rights.

a business is treated as a person, becuase it has to have rights, or it is can be taken advantage of without consequences of law.

can i kill anyone of those animals in the wild you mentioned...yes i can..............can i kill them in an environment created by someone...no becuase are property of someone.
You have made the false assumption that only persons have any rights at all. As any overview of the law would show, you are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom