It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 23
49
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 





Nope, and every time you make this claim on my behalf it's incorrect. I have claimed that the American system balances individual rights versus collective rights. It is your position that "property is sacrosanct" and therefore you are the one who would have argued for the continuance of slavery, not me.


You have said, over and over again, that if something is the "will of the people" and the "law of the land" that it was just and proper. Thus, based on this premise, you would have approved both with slavery and Jim Crow as they both were the "law of the land" and the "will of the people." I would have been against both because people are not "property," even if the "law of the land" and the "will of the people" says they are. You simply did not think your position through and when confronted with the inconsistency of your argument, flip flop and try to wriggle out of the corner you painted yourself in.




Wrong again. I want individual rights recognized as they are in the Constitution balanced with the needs of the People.


No you don't. You want the rights of the minority or individual to be subservient to the will of the majority IF you dislike those individuals who are being coerced to do what you want.




Wrong again. It is exactly about the rights of property owners to serve who they want, when they want, what they want, etc. Why are you so clearly misrepresenting Jim Crow laws, Doc?


No, exactly right. Who served whom in who's restaurant was a minor part of Jim Crow. The real abomination was the GOVERNMENT, under force of law preventing African Americans from participating in the electoral process, voting, owning businesses (you know, those very businesses you want the government to control), owning property (you know, the very stuff you disregard--blacks wanted to own that and decide what to do with that and aspired to have it but the law kept them from doing that). You have stated, over and over again, that the law and the will of the people made governmental interference in business good and just and Jim Crow is an example where the LAW and the will of the people was unjust. You just wriggle when confronted with the failure of your position.




Prove it, don't just spew it. Further, who are you to preach? You think that some folks should have to come in the back door, or have separate water fountains ... if that's what the OWNER OF PROPERTY wants to offer them. Pfft.

Get the board out of your own eye, or better yet, physician, heal thyself.


You think that one person has the "right" to the services and labor of another? Back in the day, this was known as "slavery." If you do not want to provide me with a service, my rights are not violated. You are not obligated to do squat for me if you don't want to.





See, there you go. All you need now is a Rebel flag waving and Dixie playing.


Ah, the last bastion of a leftist. As sure as the sun sets, when backed into a corner, they play the race/racist card. Not only is your suggestion that I'm some sort of neo-confederate laughable and stupid, but it clearly demonstrates the content of your character and your philosophical underpinnings.

It isn't about north or south. The tenth amendment was put in there by the FF because they knew that the bigger and more centralized the government, the more bureaucratic, wasteful, difficult to manage, prone to abuse, difficult to control, and unresponsive it would be. We look at the NSA scandal, patriot act, a myriad of alphabet agencies, WOD, and so forth and we see they were correct. Keeping day to day issues under state and local control made things better in their mind which is why they put in the tenth amendment.




I haven't made any claim that the US Constitution says anything like that, although the Commerce Clause is pretty clear.


Yes you have, in fact you said it right there, in the same sentence where you said you didn't.





Public accommodation laws usually enact at the State or local level, you know where the purview of the States begins?


Wait a second, you said earlier that the state wasn't supposed to do that. You said that the Constitution is the law of the land, not state laws and that the federal government, according to the Constitution and the Commerce clause, has every right to dictate public accommodation laws. So which is it? Is public accommodation laws or no public accommodation laws the purview of the state or not? You shift every time a point is made against you.




Here's the thing, Doc. All you're doing here is assigning beliefs to myself and to others that we don't have because that is convenient for your argument. Why muddy the water with all that?


I'm not assigning anything to you. You are the one saying these things. It is not my fault that you haven't thought your position fully through and have a superficial understanding of the underlying laws and principles.




Show, state, demonstrate, elucidate, WHERE personal property is declared to be sacrosanct and untouchable by government through due process of law, please. Show where any Constitution or any other legal document states that a public business can do whatever it wants to, whenever it wants to, to whomever it wants to (or not.)


Firstly, I never said that a business can do whatever it wants to whomever it wants whenever it wants. You complain about people putting words in your mouth but you obviously have no problem with doing it yourself. Certainly a business cannot harm another citizen, violate their rights, damage their property, fail to fulfill a contractual obligations, commit fraud, or theft. However, you understanding of "rights" obviously comes from leftist talking points. I do not have a right to your services. Having a right to the labor of another was once known as "slavery". I do not have the right to force you to provide me with a service against your will assuming we have not already started a contractual arrangement. You refusing to provide me with a service, assuming no contract in place, does not violate my rights one iota. However, me using the coercive power of government to force you to provide me with your labor, your services, IS a violation of your rights and autonomy as an individual human being.

The Constitution is full of support for private property:




The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4). They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5).

* They empowered Congress to protect intellectual property by authorizing copyright and patent laws (I-8-8).

* They granted Congress authority to punish piracy, a crime directed principally against property (I-8-10).

* They denied Congress and the states authority to pass ex post facto laws (I-9-3 and I-10), a ban that some of the Founders thought would protect property.

* When it became clear that the ban on ex post facto laws was not broad enough to protect property, they partially plugged the gap with the Fifth Amendment, which (1) prevented any person from being “deprived of . . . property, without due process of law” and (2) required compensation when “property [was] taken for public use.”

* They added a section (Article I, Section 10) with several provisions protecting financial assets against state governments.

* Similarly, they inserted a section providing that those who had loaned money to the former Confederation Congress would be able to enforce those debts against the new government (V-1).

* They granted the federal courts jurisdiction over interstate land claims and interstate debts to limit the extent to which state courts could discriminate against the property rights of out-of-staters (III-2-1 and III-2-2).

* They added the Full Faith and Credit Clause (IV-1) partly to require state courts to honor property records in other states.

* Most of the Founders opposed slavery, but given the system of the day, they even included provisions that protected “property” in slaves (e.g., I-9-1).

* The Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause (IV-2-1) protected the rights of citizens doing business and owning land in other states (including, by the way, the rights of women and free African-American citizens).

* The Founders gave Congress an unlimited power to dispose of public land (IV-3-2), but only limited power to acquire or hold land (I-8-17 and certain incidental powers). This was because they wanted most publicly-owned land to be transferred to the private sector.

* The Founders inserted a provision specifically protecting the property of family members of those convicted of treason (III-3-2).

The Original Constitution
Get the New Book Today!

* They adopted the Third Amendment, which largely prevented the government from quartering troops in private homes.

* They adopted the Fourth Amendment, which protected “persons, houses, papers, and effects” from unreasonable search and seizure.

* They added the Eighth Amendment, which barred excessive fines.

* They also inserted a number of other checks and balances, designed partly to protect minorities from unfair property confiscations.



tenthamendmentcenter.com... titution-and-property-rights/#.UwS78Uoo4dU

Here is a good read:object.cato.org... rg/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf

ANd another:


The Bill of Rights on Private Property

Many people were fearful that the Constitution still concentrated too much power in the hands of the federal government. The electorate in key states insisted upon a “Bill of Rights” lest they would reject the proposed Constitution.

These amendments soon became incorporated into the new Constitution. Six of these ten amendments pertain either directly or indirectly to private property rights.

The Third Amendment states, “No soldier shall in times of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the owner, nor in times of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.” This amendment grew out of abuses by the British, who had forced people to allow troops into their homes. The amendment clearly protects the rights of homeowners, but is too specific for wider applications.

The Fourth Amendment includes the clause, “The rights of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . .” The “search and seizure” clause has been interpreted to pertain primarily to criminal cases, but the stated intent of this statement is to make people secure in their persons and possessions. In civil cases law enforcement officials presently are able to seize property without a warrant and place the burden of proof upon the owner to show that he did not commit a crime. In fact, some local governments now use civil seizures to supplement their budgets.

The Seventh Amendment requires that for civil cases in federal courts, “no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to common law.” The common law, as we have seen, rests upon three pillars, including private property rights. This indirect recognition of private property only protects individual owners against other private parties. These common law property claims become enforceable against the federal government under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Amendment Nine states, “The enumeration of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment Ten further stipulates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states and the people.” The original intent of the “enumeration” and the “reservation” clauses clearly reaffirm the contract theory of government held by John Locke and James Madison alike. All “powers not delegated to the federal government” includes any and all private property rights described under the common law. Historically, however, U.S. courts have never used the “reservation” clause to decide important cases.

The most explicit recognition of private property comes in the Fifth Amendment which states “Nor shall [anyone] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” The first clause is called the “due process” clause while the second part is referred to as the “takings” clause.

Until the middle of the twentieth century, the “due process” clause was often used to strike down regulations imposed on private property especially if they amounted to confiscation by regulation or if they exceeded the federal government’s constitutionally delegated authority. For example, when President Franklin Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act required all trades and businesses to form trade associations, restrict entry, and establish minimum wages and prices, the Supreme Court overturned this wholesale reorganization of U.S. industry as a violation of the “due process” clause. This prompted President Roosevelt to threaten to “pack” the Supreme Court. Although Roosevelt failed to gain congressional approval to expand the Supreme Court from nine to fifteen members, the Court no longer overturned New Deal policies. Subsequently, Courts have created an artificial distinction between “property liberties” and “personal liberties.” Rarely, do Courts use the “due process” clause to uphold “property liberties” anymore. Current judicial theorists argue that the Constitution does not prescribe a particular economic system (capitalism). Therefore, private property liberties are not protected while “personal liberties” such as First Amendment guarantees of free speech are still upheld under the “due process” clause.

The “takings” clause requires all levels of government to justly compensate owners for property taken for public use. Whenever land is condemned or taken for highway construction, military bases, and so forth, courts must estimate the fair value of the property to be paid to the owners. The “takings” clause also requires governments to compensate owners when confiscatory taxes are imposed or regulatory acts render property worthless.



Read more: www.fee.org...


The fifth amendment states that no one should be deprived of property without due process nor taken for public use without just compensation. I declare your property a "public" business and thus you don't have any say on how its run. Since I declare it a "public" business, where is your due process? Where is your just compensation for the state declaring your business, your labor, your goods "public." This is forbidden in the Constitution.

I have proven quite clearly my position. The Constitution is full of private property protections but says ZERO about the federal government dictating how you run your business and whom you may or may not serve.




Prove YOUR claim for a change. Leave all the personal attacks out of it.


Firstly, I did prove it, in great detail. As for the second: "Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black." Every post you have had in this thread has contained denigration of other posters.




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 





I choose to believe we still have a feudal system, just different names in the hierarchy.


Essentially you and I do live under a Feudal system just substitute

Congressman - Lords,
Reps - robber barons
Citizen - vassals, peons, commoner, taxpayer, slave (take your pick)

(you are not a natural person - you are a citizen....think about it for a minute...you are defined BY LAW)


BTW Am Australian, under our Constitutional Monarchy the Queen of Englands representative in Australia can "sack" our Govt in cvertain situations as happened in 1975

Great thread you should study:
All Roads Lead to Rome
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

edit on 19-2-2014 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: double post oops



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
delete. needed to quote.
edit on 19-2-2014 by wuforde because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Ramcheck
If I were an American I would just draw a line through the middle and call the south Racistbigotland, and be done with it. Why waste any more time and energy on these fools? You want to progress? You want peace? It won't happen as long as you allow backward politicians to have any kind of 'power'.


Kansas is in the NORTH. lol
wu



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight
 


Light, no worries about formatting ... but ... what in the world are you trying to say?

1. Conservapedia, really? Okay, noting the obvious bias of the source ...

No individual in this country has ever had "absolute dominion" over property either real or personal. The closest we come in most nations, historically, would be the "high king" or "emperor" in a feudal type scenario.

2. I've quoted and noted the provisions of Amendment V twice in this same thread. It provides for a) due process of law in regard to property and b) just compensation if the government uses the powers of eminent domain or condemnation (taking private property for public use, the formal act of same).

Amendment V DOES not cede "ultimate property rights to individuals" nor does it "give them the right to do whatever they want on their property." These are preposterous ideas except in the abstract.

3. I'm assuming your responding with the idea that corporations are people? In some ways yes, strictly speaking, (they sign agreements, file taxes, make contributions to political campaigns, etc.) they are artificial persons, but no corporation is a natural person and at this moment in American history at least, only natural persons can be citizens and enjoy all the protections of the Constitution (like, I'm assuming "religious freedom.")

4. I have opinions on the Sovereign movement. I'm not sure that they belong here. At this moment in time, the "Sovereign" power in the United States is The People exercising their power through their Government(s) via the Constitutions, Laws, Acts, etc., that make up the "rule of law." No individual in the US is a "Sovereign" ... the idea is obnoxious to our founding principles, in my opinion.

5. Still trying to piece together what you're proving here ... yes, the Supreme Court has reinforced the idea that the Federal government has the powers of eminent domain and condemnation. I agree with you.

6. Black's Law Dictionary is not a legal document.

7. It is often said that there is a "bundle of rights" that accede to real property ownership. In other words we can possess, mortgage, lease, buy, sell, trade, improve and have quiet enjoyment of land for which we have a deed or title or leasehold. (Usually deeds in the US). There is a distinction (as previously noted) between real property (land and improvements, etc.) and personal property (movable, like boats, cars, planes, but also stocks, bonds, CDs, etc.) Excluding others from "means" that we can prevent others from possessing, mortgaging, leasing, buying, selling, or improving land to which we hold title.

Quiet enjoyment does not mean that we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want. There are obvious limitations to the "rights of property" including local ordinances, deed covenants, health concerns, etc.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by wuforde
 


Kansas is usually considered to be in "the central plains."



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 





reply to post by dragonridr
"The government grants right of access to the public was this right in the constitution? "




I think the poster was implying that it is because the person opened their property to serve the public


to "serve" the public
You serve, you are obliged, you are under an "implied contract" (perhaps)
See how by "legalizing" and defining under Law you compel.
www.thefreedictionary.com...
some of the definitions of "serve"

6.a. To work through or complete (a period of service): served four terms in Congress.
b. To be in prison for (a period or term): served 10 years for armed robbery.
7. To fight or undergo military service for: served the country for five years in the navy.
8. To give homage and obedience to: served God.

Why should there be hundreds of laws to run a restaurant? Where is the public benefit if most of those regulations dont pertain to the toxicity/fitness of food?

What "public benefit" is served by the collection of fines and penalties that end up in general revenue

www.newsmax.com...
20 Cities That May Face Bankruptcy After Detroit



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


You are right. For some reason i was thinking South Dakota when i pictured Kansas in my head, rough morning. My bad.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I'm tiring of the semantic ping-pong match you want to have Doc: A few final things and then I'm considering your points justly dismissed on numerous occasions by me in this discussion.

I have said that the American system of government is based on balancing the rights of the individual and the rights of the People at large. YOU have continually misrepresented what I've said to fit your own argument. YOU are being utterly dishonest.

You believe in "absolute property rights." As such YOU would support slavery and Jim Crow, which both depended on the sanctity of "property." Your continuing assertion that I am doing that or would believe that or "would have had done so" is just ludicrous.

Stop.

You think that if you continually restate the arguments of others and ignore the facts they present and misrepresent your own position long enough that the other party in the discussion will just give up. To say that your style is disingenuous in terms of real debate or even polite discussion would be the understatement of 2014 so far.

I have stated continuously the same basic principle throughout: here it is again for your reference. The American system of government and jurisprudence was conceived as a balance between the will (and rights) of the individual and the will (and rights of) the People, the body politic, the essential collective quality of all American citizens considered as a Whole, E Pluribus Unum, ETC ETC ETC.

Your constant and rabid denials of the facts, the pathetic sophomoric "debate" tactics you use, belie your true intent.

Keep repeating your misguided opinions about what I say, mean, think, believe, and say repeatedly. I will keep correcting you.



Who served whom in who's restaurant was a minor part of Jim Crow.


I'm sure that IS minor to you, because you believe that owners of restaurants, trains, inns, theaters, buses, etc. should be able to do whatever they wanted however they wanted because, after all, the property is THEIRS and they have ULTIMATE RIGHTS.

The STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS in the South under the pretense of States Rights (Amendment X) are the source of "preventing African Americans from participating in the electoral process, voting, owning businesses (you know, those very businesses you want the government to control) [LIE -G66], owning property (you know, the very stuff you disregard--blacks wanted to own that and decide what to do with that and aspired to have it but the law kept them from doing that) [ANOTHER LIE -G66]."

I will always agree that without a strong central government that the States will dissolve into tiny satrapies where the worst examples of the human condition ... greed, hatred, discrimination, lynching and such will prevail. The FEDERAL Government put The Civil Rights Act of 1875 in place to try to avoid the next 82 years of Jim Crow segregation, but of course, that was ignored by those that believe that they are a law unto themselves, that they can do whatever they want on THEIR PROPERTY.

Stop with the endless cavalcade of strawmen and fallacious arguments. If you want to state what I have said or what I believe or what I think then QUOTE WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN in your posts.

Your style is quite obvious and you're merely blowing a peculiarly noxious brand of hot air.

I want to request that you have some basic dignity and stop the foolishness.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Fylgje
 





hillbillies


Now why has that come to be derogatory? to disempower, so now one takes them less seriously...I mean they dont deserve human rights?


deepdownfilm.org...


Ask yourself, who profits from these images of Appalachia? The same people who profit from the physical destruction of Appalachia. Answer this question and you have your perpetrator. It’s the strip mine owners, the coal plant owners, the nuclear power industry, the nuclear weapons industry—simply put, those who pollute and destroy our land and profit from that destruction the most. We are portrayed as stupid, ignorant, inbred in order to make it acceptable to turn streams bright orange and to blow up entire mountains and destroy highland watersheds forever. We are naive so of course companies and at times the federal government have seized whole Appalachia towns. We don’t know how to take care of our land, mountains, coal, watersheds and resources, of course its great for the corporate carpetbagging out of state corporations to come and exploit us. One, of several examples, of this destruction of Appalachia for the benefit of the rest of the nation is the Kanawha valley in West Virginia. The Kanawha valley in West Virginia is the chemical production center for Union Carbide, DuPont, FMC and other chemical corporations. A local high school there is called “Nitro” high school. The industry located in that valley to contain their waste. The Appalachians are Americas toxic dumping ground.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





What does an independent contractor do but offer a good and or service? They would be and are in the same boat.


Independent Contractors do not fall under Public Accommodations Laws.



So you are for racial discrimination, or discrimination based on race.


Really? Nothing I said can be construed as such. Only in the mind of a person who wants everyone to be guilty of discrimination so that they can turn around and point a finger and say: "See? So and so did it!"



For an "anarchist" you sure seem to like government involvement and regulation.


I think it's rather sad that because too many people are completely incapable of participating in a true free market, that people have to appeal to authority to stop it. A true free market automatically wouldn't discriminate against anyone for any reason. A true free market in this regard is exactly as the US Law states: Services and Goods offered to the public must be offered to the whole public. People choosing to operate businesses would put on their adult pants and realize that means sometimes having to do business with people you don't agree with. I think it's whiny and rather immature for people to do business any other way.


Actually yes. If you think that a discriminatory decision, such as racial quotas, set asides, loans, can be based on race, then you are for racial discrimination. Simply calling racism affirmative action does not make it any less discriminatory. Also, that position would be against both an anarchist mindset and a free market so how are you both for racially based governmental decisions and anarchy and a free market at the same time. They are rather mutually exclusive positions.

I agree. A true free market does not discriminate. However, the appealing to authority to stop the free market and free association of people involved in the market is counter to the free market and anarchist mindset. You cannot have true freedom of association if authority tells you that you must associate with people just as you cannot have freedom of association if authority tells you not to associate with someone.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

neo96
reply to post by Cuervo
 





How did I imply that? You were making a point that those businesses are also supported by Christians and I was pointing out that those Christians aren't barred from going to any of those businesses.


Yeah well I am thinking back to my tobacco threads, and it was all fine and dandy to 'discriminate' against smokers.

And that private business 'decision' was defended, then I read this thread.

And all I see is cognitive dissonance.


Second hand smoke has been proven to cause health issues in other people so it's a health hazard. Looking out for the health of your patrons and employees isn't discrimination. Are these restaurant owners afraid some gay person with aids is going to come in there and start raping people?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 




injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere



First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

attr: to Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)




An English translation of Niemöller's speech for the Confessing Church in Frankfurt on 6 January 1946 is as follows: When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians - "should I be my brother's keeper?" Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. - I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? -- Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

robobbob
reply to post by Cuervo
 

the very definition and purpose of marriage is encouraging procreation in a stable home environment. gay couples marrying doesn't even have a purpose.


How romantic. Was that in your wedding vows? Does your wife know that you married her just so she can breed?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

amfirst1
reply to post by Cuervo
 


It's not like gay people would eat at those restaurants anyways.


Why? Because gay people don't get hungry or occasionally crave artery-clogging freedom fries? Fundies can't hog all the obesity in America, now can they?

Everybody wants the occasional plate of biscuits and gravy.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

pyramid head

Maybe you should spend less time being an authoritarian and forcing your views on everyone and more time worrying about the criminals in Washington who are allowing privately owned offshore mega-banks to steal from our country and militarize our police.

There literally could not be anything less important than this going on.


Why don't you tell that to the people who spent all the time fussing about gay people eating in their restaurants? They are the ones who thought it was more important than the "criminals in Washington" in the first place.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I personally find homosexuality to be an abhorrent lifestyle choice, I don't think it is productive or healthy, I don't believe it should be promoted or a part of education for children....

BUT, I live in a country that was fought for and built upon a base of freedom and liberty. It doesn't matter what I think or believe, I am in no position to judge anyone. When all is said and done here I would rather be on the side of freedom. If their lifestyle choices are wrong that is between them and their God, or whatever they believe in. What consenting adults do in their sex lives is none of my business.

I will respect, accept and tolerate them, because I live in a free country.

Just my honest opinion.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I'm tiring of the semantic ping-pong match you want to have Doc: A few final things and then I'm considering your points justly dismissed on numerous occasions by me in this discussion.

I have said that the American system of government is based on balancing the rights of the individual and the rights of the People at large. YOU have continually misrepresented what I've said to fit your own argument. YOU are being utterly dishonest.

You believe in "absolute property rights." As such YOU would support slavery and Jim Crow, which both depended on the sanctity of "property." Your continuing assertion that I am doing that or would believe that or "would have had done so" is just ludicrous.

Stop.

You think that if you continually restate the arguments of others and ignore the facts they present and misrepresent your own position long enough that the other party in the discussion will just give up. To say that your style is disingenuous in terms of real debate or even polite discussion would be the understatement of 2014 so far.

I have stated continuously the same basic principle throughout: here it is again for your reference. The American system of government and jurisprudence was conceived as a balance between the will (and rights) of the individual and the will (and rights of) the People, the body politic, the essential collective quality of all American citizens considered as a Whole, E Pluribus Unum, ETC ETC ETC.

Your constant and rabid denials of the facts, the pathetic sophomoric "debate" tactics you use, belie your true intent.

Keep repeating your misguided opinions about what I say, mean, think, believe, and say repeatedly. I will keep correcting you.



Who served whom in who's restaurant was a minor part of Jim Crow.


I'm sure that IS minor to you, because you believe that owners of restaurants, trains, inns, theaters, buses, etc. should be able to do whatever they wanted however they wanted because, after all, the property is THEIRS and they have ULTIMATE RIGHTS.

The STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS in the South under the pretense of States Rights (Amendment X) are the source of "preventing African Americans from participating in the electoral process, voting, owning businesses (you know, those very businesses you want the government to control) [LIE -G66], owning property (you know, the very stuff you disregard--blacks wanted to own that and decide what to do with that and aspired to have it but the law kept them from doing that) [ANOTHER LIE -G66]."

I will always agree that without a strong central government that the States will dissolve into tiny satrapies where the worst examples of the human condition ... greed, hatred, discrimination, lynching and such will prevail. The FEDERAL Government put The Civil Rights Act of 1875 in place to try to avoid the next 82 years of Jim Crow segregation, but of course, that was ignored by those that believe that they are a law unto themselves, that they can do whatever they want on THEIR PROPERTY.

Stop with the endless cavalcade of strawmen and fallacious arguments. If you want to state what I have said or what I believe or what I think then QUOTE WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN in your posts.

Your style is quite obvious and you're merely blowing a peculiarly noxious brand of hot air.

I want to request that you have some basic dignity and stop the foolishness.


Nonsense. You have stated that governmental intrusion upon individual commerce, the subject of this discussion, was the law of the land and the will of the people and thus was appropriate. When I pointed out an example of the will of the people and the law of the land being awful, you backpedaled and went," Oh...err...um...I meant the Constitution was the law of the land forget the states...". When I again demonstrated that the Constitution was used and upheld by the SCOTUS that supported these awful decisions, you backpedaled yet again and then talked about the purview of the states. Rather than admitting the flaws of your initial premise, YOU have continually shifted and changed your premise. The dishonesty and lack of integrity is with you.

Stop.

You said that the law of the land and the will of the people overcomes individual liberty and rights to property over and over again. YOU presented that position. When I point out that such a belief system would have supported both slavery and Jim Crow, given that they were both the law of the land and the will of the people, you, in intellectual dishonesty, wriggle and squirm to justify your self-contradiction. I have been consistent. I believe that individuals have rights in spite of the law of the land and the will of the people and thus slavery is against my consistent principles because people are not property. YOU are the one who limits and defines an individual's rights based on what "the people" want. Your foolish parroting of leftist talking points and MSNBC drivel is foolish to the extreme.

I have presented the facts. Over and over and over again. Your ignorance of the facts and the constant wriggling to change the parameters and the refusal to own up to your own position is top example of intellectual dishonesty of the year so far, certainly. Your inability to engage in polite discourse from the beginning is a shining example of your hypocrisy. You started out being disrespectful, discourteous, and condescending and yet you have the gall to lecture other people about politeness?

From page 10, before I even entered the thread:
You said:


not only incorrect but asinine.


"Asinine?" My that's a term reeking of polite discourse.
Page 12:



Are you certain that it is ME that needs the history lesson?







Well, as you don't seem to understand the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration, I think I'll take my historical advice elsewhere, if you don't mind.





Your sentences barely make sense.

Condescension to fellow ATS members. Right, you are such a polite debater. You also seem to be one of those idiots who thinks saying "no offense" after being offensive makes it less offensive.

Notice that on page 14 I didn't even respond to you, because it is a pain to respond to irrational jerks, so I attempted to ignore you since the site has no ignore button.
Page 16. I still am ignoring your inanity, but you are arguing with someone else. Let's look at your phraseology. There:



faux-libertarian wonderland




is asinine in the extreme,





Then I would say to the "posting persona" that you're presenting, that's living in fantasy land that has never existed outside a Ayn Rand novel


Let's see condescension and insulting. You do like arguing with people--a lot of people. Anyone ever tell you if that everyone fights with you that the asshole most likely is you, not everyone else?

And this finally gets to the second post from you to me and the first one I responded to:



Mindlessly chanting the buzzwords common to the right-wing media only points, in my opinion, to a lack of original thought.



So you came at me first, with insults and condescension, setting the tone for our discourse and then you have the audacity to complain when it is done back to you? Not only are you a hypocrite, but you are a liar.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


Since the site has no "ignore button" I have no problem ignoring an obnoxious jerk, and I was doing this in this thread until you came after me. Since every time we interact, most likely both being "alpha" personalities, it degenerates to this I have no problem with a mutual agreement of ignoring each other. Thus, please take you dishonesty, hypocrisy, and ignorance elsewhere.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join