Welcome To The First Net Nation


#21

More personal insults, I guess you’d rather act like a prick than have any debate…


#22

:roll_eyes: poor dears, as though it’s not enough of an echo chamber as it is. Would you prefer that the opposing voices leave so that you can have your little pity party?


#23

You refuse to listen to my explanation of my reasoning or you have little care in addressing it. I am for free trade but government tariffs do not constitute free trade. I am for the free market and for free association but for the last 60 odd years the right has been told time after time that you must serve a customer whether you want to or not. You must not be selective in your hiring if it doesn’t involve the required criteria for the job and now… all of a sudden… California is for states rights and nullification and businesses have the right to pick and choose who they will serve. I like that idea a lot but not after I have been kneecapped in those very freedoms…


#24

Dear lord!!! Dude, take a week and go to the upper Hudson and stay in a rented country cottage. Take walks along its banks, skip stones, do a little kyacking and let your soul blend into nature…and forget about your fears, and all these conspiracy theories, tell whoever you have to that I authorized it, ok now…


#25

I was going to say something similar to what monte said but in a slightly less condescending way. We defend our freedom by defending our positions. We complain that the left have nothing … well, the only way that means anything is that we do. I would also like to see more people here defend their positions against the constitution rather than what seems to be the preferred method of the left and a couple of different segments of the right… We are nothing different but for our constitution and our Constitution is nothing if we don’t understand it and defend it.

I relayed the results of a poll on another thread that said that 40% of those surveyed could not name all of the rights in the first amendment… only one person of over 1000 surveyed knew that their were 5 and could actually name them…


#26

Yeah, but you haven’t done so, shrug. I’ve never had a Facebook account or a twitter account and most likely never will. I don’t care what they do. I also feel differently about social media sites banning me than I do a brick and mortar store.


#27

Well that your right to have that opinion but if Congress is considering regulating social media and Congress is considering considering the Internet a public utility, whether you use it and invest your life in it and shop on it is irrelevant…

I too have never had a facebook or twitter account… I looked at their free business models early on and saw where their profits would come from… for the same reason I don’t avail myself of store and discount cards. That doesn’t mean that the #metoo generation hasn’t embraced it and if you are going to mandate equal access to everything… then everything includes services…

You need to explain…


#28

I’m not going to disagree with that, but again, it’s a matter of evolution that just drives you up the wall I know, but it is what it is. The only thing permanent is change. :wink: I’m not sure how old you are but I get the feeling we’re similar in age, and I think our generation was about the last to have a good civics class in high school. The ignorance (broad brush now, I know there’s exceptions to every rule) of the younger generation of how politics works, the constitution, and real history of America is concerning. But again, nobody wants to do anything different. The competition of a real third party in my opinion would shake things up in a far better and organized way than a bull in a china shop.


#29

Now that’s a whole other thing Scott. I’m already on record here saying that I DO NOT support the government legislating anything close to that…HELL NO!


#30

That is only relevant when the viable third party doesn’t find a way to tear down the constitutional principles farther… as far as ‘evolution’ … the constitution is not an evolutionary document… It does not live… It does not breath… But for article V it is set in granite. Usurpation via judical activism and deference and legislative precedence does nothing but dissolve the documents power, not enhance it.


#31

People (businesses) have been discriminating that whole time and still do. You’d like to see a Supreme Court that rules in favor of the religious right, at the expense of someone else’s right to not be discriminated against. I guess in that tug of war someone’s always going to be pissed.


#32

Well indeed. If the two dinosaurs realized that Americans actually would put someone other than either of them in the White House, IMO, it would make those two party’s better. And of course the new one given a chance had best understand WHY they were given such a chance to begin with. Maybe America should split into three countries, not on north and south lines, but on political lines, liberal America and conservative America, with a third option for those of us that find both extremes distasteful. A moderate America if you will. Lol


#33

The entire point of the constitution was equal justice protection under the law, not equal outcomes. EVERYONE has preferences and they are by their nature discriminatory. If I start a business to serve a certain clientèle I should have that right and had it not been for the 1964 Civil rights act far more minority owned businesses would have been formed far more black communities like Ferguson would have been policed by black cops.

If their is discrimination that can be proven, there is a myriad of state and federal agencies set up to defend the 1964 civil rights act… not that it actually had any real constitutional basis… changing the definition of ‘public accommodation’ turned every privately owned business into a government controlled shop.


#34

Good luck with financing it… The left will bleed you of your lower wage workers and the right will take your business…


#35

Yeah, the constitution was written by men, a damn good document with a hell of a lot of collective forethought and compromise, as many have declared, quite possibly the best in human history. But it is NOT perfect, and it is not infallible…

As I’ve said to you before, you live in your mind in a black and white world that’s actually VERY nuanced. That’s a perennial frustration.


#36

But ignoring it does not make it better … but it sure makes it much easier for the imperfect men of this world who couldn’t garner the support for an Article V change… A law should be black and white… a citizen should never suffer the ambiguity of conflicting law…


#37

Well good lord, I never suggested that, nor has it been. In fact, it’s been amended 27 times and there are people happy with some of them and unhappy with others. The first five were certainly important.


#38

The first ten were a requirement for ratification…

Can you tell me with a straight face that Plessy v Furguson was constitutional?.. Or how about dred scott?.. I would add the antithesis of Plessy that exists in the 1964 civil rights act… but thats just me… and a few million others.


#39

As Steve , I remember and now your back as Monte ! :wink:


#40

Nah… I don’t think he is Steve… if he was, he couldn’t resist bringing up is association with OFA… unless that was the group that banned him…