How many people understand the US Constitution?

Justin-case said:
Why do you force yourself on us then?
Click to expand...


It's a defensive action on my part. You advocate for systems which rely on the use of offensive force and are blatantly contradictory.

In other words, you aren't a very peaceful person. Not to mention a poor debater.
 
I disagree. By the logic that you offer, I shouldn't be able to grow ANY plants for personal consumption. Not tomatoes, nor corn or any vegetable. Throw in growing my own tobacco, raising chickens, pigs cattle of any sort or even flowers. There are already established interstate markets for all of those.

Yes marijuana was made illegal in several states prior to marijuana being made illegal on a federal level. I agree. However, the federal government has long played fast and loose using the interstate commerce clause. Why couldn't the farmer raise food for his own animals? According to the SCOTUS opinion, because they say that it interfered with interstate commerce. How so? It's purpose was to never leave his personal possession.

You can call me ignorant, but just you saying so does not make it true.

But I guess that you also think that SCOTUS'opinion in the Dred Scott case was also the correct judgement. That slavery was and would still be had it not been overturned, legal and justified.

I think that the problem you may be having is that you think that every single thing that the government tells you is the best thing. Maybe for a statist, but not for a Constitutional Republic, which is what we are, NOT a Democracy, which is different.

Were you taught by nothing but liberals? If so, I can see where the underlying misinformation is coming from. No party or political ideology has any right to teach nothing but their point of view. I don't want my kids being taught by liberals OR conservatives. I also don't like my news with those slants.
 
UncleBuck said:
here you are comparing civil rights, aka equal rights, to rape and slavery. see?
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm comparing one kind of human interaction which disregards the wishes of one party to another kind which also disregards the wishes of one party.

Which person has the right to go to another persons property and initiate a human interaction with that other person, if that other person would prefer not to interact? Do you ?
 
UncleBuck said:
except that you did compare civil rights to theft, slavery, and rape. repeatedly. in writing.

retard.
Click to expand...

By your statement, I think you may have concluded that "civil rights" means equal rights.

If that's what you meant, could you give an example of how they are the same thing ? I'm not sure they are.
 
Rob Roy said:
By your statement, I think you may have concluded that "civil rights" means equal rights.

If that's what you meant, could you give an example of how they are the same thing ? I'm not sure they are.
Click to expand...
civil rights means you cannot be denied access to certain institutions because f your skin color, sex, creed, nationality and so on and so forth.

it ensures equal rights to groups who were denied them, thereby harming those groups.

of course, you don't think it was harmful for black people to be denied access to all sorts of institutions all across the south for decades, because you are a racist piece of shit.
 
UncleBuck said:
civil rights means you cannot be denied access to certain institutions because f your skin color, sex, creed, nationality and so on and so forth.

it ensures equal rights to groups who were denied them, thereby harming those groups.

of course, you don't think it was harmful for black people to be denied access to all sorts of institutions all across the south for decades, because you are a racist piece of shit.
Click to expand...

Some people think the exercise of a right by one person shouldn't negate the right of another person or it ceases to be a right.

So, do individual people regardless of race have the right to decide who they will interact with ?

Should a white person be involved in forcing a black person to serve him, when the black person would prefer not to associate with him?
 
Rob Roy said:
Some people think the exercise of a right by one person shouldn't negate the right of another person or it ceases to be a right.

So, do individual people regardless of race have the right to decide who they will interact with ?

Should a white person be involved in forcing a black person to serve him, when the black person would prefer not to associate with him?
Click to expand...

you do not have a right to harm someone.

when people were allowed to boot people from their stores based on their skin color, it caused a ton of harm. you are a segregationist who is unable to admit that denying black people access to the same institutions and facilities as whites for decades caused harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top