Do the Democrats have a plan "B"?

Ted Cruz declared his candidacy in front of a captive audience (literally. Read up about the policies of the school).  I give him a few primaries before he throws in the towel.  The entertainment value should be pretty good.
 
Ms Tree said:
Awww. I thought you had moved past the personal insults. I guess you fell off the wagon. May be your sponsor can help?

May be someone should tell the SCOTUS that the CRA is in violation of the Constitution. He can try and justify his words all day long. I doubt to many will buy what he is selling.

I cant wait for all the Ron Paul questions. He's going to have learn to dance. Good times.
 
Well, there is always a fine balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and those of government. On balance the CRA has generally worked and I've heard Rand state that. He also stated that his argument over the CRA is an intellectual one. He has never advocated or supported repeal of the CRA because in his words "It has done largely what it intended to do"
 
You are right in that Paul has said he does support the CRA ... for the most part.  He just disagrees with the part of the CRA that says Woolworth does not have the right to deny service to King.
 
Hard to talk your way out of that one.
 
Obama_Poster_Century_Socialism_Onward.png
 
Ms Tree said:
You are right in that Paul has said he does support the CRA ... for the most part.  He just disagrees with the part of the CRA that says Woolworth does not have the right to deny service to King.
 
Hard to talk your way out of that one.
 
Thus my comment regarding Private Property rights. Should a government be allowed to to tell a private company or individual who they can or can not do business with? Elements of the CRA have been used to ban Cigar Bars and regulate other businesses as well. None of which were the intent of the CRA
 
IMO, DR. King's Woolworth Lunch counter demonstration did a great deal of good without one speck of rules, regulations or laws. Those black men already had rights. By their actions they claimed what they already had. The passing of the CRA only hastened what IMO was inevitable. Much like the current situation with smoking pot and gay marriage. We already had the rights to do those things. It's just now we have enough people standing up for their rights that the laws are changing.
 
With the passing of the CRA we as a nation gained more than we lost. This IMO renders the case closed. We made the trade off of personal property rights for a more equal and civil society. 
 
SparrowHawk said:
Thus my comment regarding Private Property rights. Should a government be allowed to to tell a private company or individual who they can or can not do business with? Elements of the CRA have been used to ban Cigar Bars and regulate other businesses as well. None of which were the intent of the CRA
 
IMO, DR. King's Woolworth Lunch counter demonstration did a great deal of good without one speck of rules, regulations or laws. Those black men already had rights. By their actions they claimed what they already had. The passing of the CRA only hastened what IMO was inevitable. Much like the current situation with smoking pot and gay marriage. We already had the rights to do those things. It's just now we have enough people standing up for their rights that the laws are changing.
 
With the passing of the CRA we as a nation gained more than we lost. This IMO renders the case closed. We made the trade off of personal property rights for a more equal and civil society.
It was against the law for a minority to eat at the lunch counter. It's against the law in a few states to have a same sex marriage. It's against the law to smoke pot in all but 3 states. They should have the right to do so but there are laws on the books that deny your "natural
Laws". Reality is a *****.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #282
Ms Tree said:
It was against the law for a minority to eat at the lunch counter. It's against the law in a few states to have a same sex marriage. It's against the law to smoke pot in all but 3 states. They should have the right to do so but there are laws on the books that deny your "natural
Laws". Reality is a ####.
Same sex marriage may be "natural" in your book! ------- Not mine!!!
 
La Li Lu Le Lo said:
Who grants those rights?
 
According to the Declaration those rights are conferred to us by our Creator. Whomever or whatever you deem that to be.
 
Ms Tree said:
It was against the law for a minority to eat at the lunch counter. It's against the law in a few states to have a same sex marriage. It's against the law to smoke pot in all but 3 states. They should have the right to do so but there are laws on the books that deny your "natural
Laws". Reality is a ####.
 
Thus the sit ins at the lunch counter. Civil Disobedience and all of that. Freedom Riders and others of good will sympathetic to the view that all are created equal. Each risked their personal safety so that others may live as they choose.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top