On the Basis of Sex and Ginsburg’s whims and fancies vs the rule of law

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

I’m talking about this right here:

@johnwk2

Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.

I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Depends on the rights.

There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.

Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Rights aren’t unlimited.

You didn’t answer the question.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

Because of the reason for exclusion.

[johnwk2]

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

I’m talking about this right here:

@johnwk2

Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.

I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Depends on the rights.

There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.

Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Rights aren’t unlimited.

You didn’t answer the question.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

Because of the reason for exclusion.

So, according to you, a property owner should not have the right to decide who is allowed on their property?

JWK

As to our Constitution being a “living document”, that life is found only in Article V, a protection demanding the people’s participation and consent when change is thought to be necessary.

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

I’m talking about this right here:

@johnwk2

Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.

I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Depends on the rights.

There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.

Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Rights aren’t unlimited.

You didn’t answer the question.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

Because of the reason for exclusion.

So, according to you, a property owner should not have the right to decide who is allowed on their property?

JWK

As to our Constitution being a “living document”, that life is found only in Article V, a protection demanding the people’s participation and consent when change is thought to be necessary.

It depends on the property and why they are deciding, remember rights aren’t unlimited.

[johnwk2]

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

I’m talking about this right here:

@johnwk2

Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.

I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Depends on the rights.

There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.

Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Rights aren’t unlimited.

You didn’t answer the question.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

Because of the reason for exclusion.

So, according to you, a property owner should not have the right to decide who is allowed on their property?

JWK

As to our Constitution being a “living document”, that life is found only in Article V, a protection demanding the people’s participation and consent when change is thought to be necessary.

It depends on the property and why they are deciding, remember rights aren’t unlimited.

Your deflection is noted, and it is void of any ascertainable boundaries.

JWK

Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars. Gold and silver coins are. FRNs are worthless script used by bankers to plunder real material wealth created by labor and industry.

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

I’m talking about this right here:

@johnwk2

Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.

I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Depends on the rights.

There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.

Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Rights aren’t unlimited.

You didn’t answer the question.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

Because of the reason for exclusion.

So, according to you, a property owner should not have the right to decide who is allowed on their property?

JWK

As to our Constitution being a “living document”, that life is found only in Article V, a protection demanding the people’s participation and consent when change is thought to be necessary.

It depends on the property and why they are deciding, remember rights aren’t unlimited.

Your deflection is noted, and it is void of any ascertainable boundaries.

JWK

Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars. Gold and silver coins are. FRNs are worthless script used by bankers to plunder real material wealth created by labor and industry.

No the store owner does not have the right to discriminate.

[johnwk2]

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

I’m talking about this right here:

@johnwk2

Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.

I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Depends on the rights.

There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.

Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Rights aren’t unlimited.

You didn’t answer the question.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

Because of the reason for exclusion.

So, according to you, a property owner should not have the right to decide who is allowed on their property?

JWK

As to our Constitution being a “living document”, that life is found only in Article V, a protection demanding the people’s participation and consent when change is thought to be necessary.

It depends on the property and why they are deciding, remember rights aren’t unlimited.

Your deflection is noted, and it is void of any ascertainable boundaries.

JWK

Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars. Gold and silver coins are. FRNs are worthless script used by bankers to plunder real material wealth created by labor and industry.

No the store owner does not have the right to discriminate.

Discriminate? By what wording in our Federal Constitution, has that inalienable right been terminated?

The very essence of life involves discriminating, perhaps hundreds of times a day. It involves the right to make one’s own choices.

JWK

[Samson_Corwell]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

I’m talking about this right here:

@johnwk2

Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.

I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Depends on the rights.

There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.

Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Rights aren’t unlimited.

You didn’t answer the question.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

Because of the reason for exclusion.

So, according to you, a property owner should not have the right to decide who is allowed on their property?

JWK

As to our Constitution being a “living document”, that life is found only in Article V, a protection demanding the people’s participation and consent when change is thought to be necessary.

It depends on the property and why they are deciding, remember rights aren’t unlimited.

Your deflection is noted, and it is void of any ascertainable boundaries.

JWK

Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars. Gold and silver coins are. FRNs are worthless script used by bankers to plunder real material wealth created by labor and industry.

No the store owner does not have the right to discriminate.

Discriminate? By what wording in our Federal Constitution, has that inalienable right been terminated?

The very essence of life involves discriminating, perhaps hundreds of times a day. It involves the right to make one’s own choices.

JWK

“One’s choices” includes murder. “Choice” doesn’t make something a right.

[johnwk2]

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

I’m talking about this right here:

@johnwk2

Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.

I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Depends on the rights.

There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.

Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Rights aren’t unlimited.

You didn’t answer the question.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

Because of the reason for exclusion.

So, according to you, a property owner should not have the right to decide who is allowed on their property?

JWK

As to our Constitution being a “living document”, that life is found only in Article V, a protection demanding the people’s participation and consent when change is thought to be necessary.

It depends on the property and why they are deciding, remember rights aren’t unlimited.

Your deflection is noted, and it is void of any ascertainable boundaries.

JWK

Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars. Gold and silver coins are. FRNs are worthless script used by bankers to plunder real material wealth created by labor and industry.

No the store owner does not have the right to discriminate.

Discriminate? By what wording in our Federal Constitution, has that inalienable right been terminated?

The very essence of life involves discriminating, perhaps hundreds of times a day. It involves the right to make one’s own choices.

JWK

“One’s choices” includes murder. “Choice” doesn’t make something a right.

We were discussing rights associated with property ownership . Not “murder”.

And, with regard to rights associated with property ownership, we were discussing the right of “exclusion” which is a primary right associated with property ownership.

JWK

Those who promote democracy, as opposed to our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, are, in general, advocates of mob rule government, and despise rights associated with property ownership and the liberty of all being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

[Bodecea]

@Borgia_dude

@johnwk2

I believe a free market system, especially in today’s society, will quickly punish any business owner rejecting customers based on bigoted reasons.

So you would advocate no govt action back in the 50s and 60s. You think the civil rights would have worked itself out over time.

Small comfort for those being discriminated against and easy to say when you aren’t in that group.

HOW LONG did it take for civil rights to just “work itself out”? HOW LONG did it take for women’s rights to just “work itself out”?

[Bodecea]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

Faith in what? And where have I remotely suggested the people you mention “should be violently kicked out”?

I’m talking about this right here:

@johnwk2

Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

The world you live in must be very bleak if you believe that activists staging sit-ins need to be removed by force. It seems as if you don’t think people are capable of doing the right thing without state violence to make them do it. The owner try persuasion instead.

I noticed you never answered the question: Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?

JWK

The liberty to succeed or fail at one’s own hand is a socialist’s nightmare and not the American Dream

Depends on the rights.

There are a number of rights associated with property ownership. Together, these rights are often referred to a “bundle of rights”. A few of the rights Included in the bundle of rights associated with property ownership are, the right of “possession”; right of “control”; right of “disposition”; right of “exclusion”.

Under the right of exclusion, an owner of property is free to limit who may enter upon said property and this right has long been viewed as an inalienable right.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Rights aren’t unlimited.

You didn’t answer the question.

Historically speaking, the right of “exclusion” emerged as a primary right in ancient times and it is this right which I believe you take issue with. If this is so, why?

JWK

Because of the reason for exclusion.

So, according to you, a property owner should not have the right to decide who is allowed on their property?

JWK

As to our Constitution being a “living document”, that life is found only in Article V, a protection demanding the people’s participation and consent when change is thought to be necessary.

It depends on the property and why they are deciding, remember rights aren’t unlimited.

Your deflection is noted, and it is void of any ascertainable boundaries.

JWK

Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars. Gold and silver coins are. FRNs are worthless script used by bankers to plunder real material wealth created by labor and industry.

No the store owner does not have the right to discriminate.

Discriminate? By what wording in our Federal Constitution, has that inalienable right been terminated?

The very essence of life involves discriminating, perhaps hundreds of times a day. It involves the right to make one’s own choices.

JWK

If business law requires that a business owner not discriminate in order to get his/her business license, if they do not comply, take the license away. Easy Peasy.

[Borgia_dude]

I’m reminded that the people who think it all would have worked itself out eventually always seem to be the people who were not being discriminated against. Funny that.

[johnwk2]

@Bodecea

@Borgia_dude

@johnwk2

I believe a free market system, especially in today’s society, will quickly punish any business owner rejecting customers based on bigoted reasons.

So you would advocate no govt action back in the 50s and 60s. You think the civil rights would have worked itself out over time.

Small comfort for those being discriminated against and easy to say when you aren’t in that group.

HOW LONG did it take for civil rights to just “work itself out”? HOW LONG did it take for women’s rights to just “work itself out”?

What does that have to do with rights associated with property ownership? Apples/oranges.

JWK

The poison connected with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialism is, the most productive, hardworking wage earners across the country ___ some in our nation’s inner cities having two and three jobs to extricate themselves from poverty ___ are specifically targeted by Cortez’s taxation and robbed of the bread they have earned, which in turn discourages them to be productive, and thus begins a Nation’s decline.

[Borgia_dude]

@johnwk2

@Bodecea

@Borgia_dude

@johnwk2

I believe a free market system, especially in today’s society, will quickly punish any business owner rejecting customers based on bigoted reasons.

So you would advocate no govt action back in the 50s and 60s. You think the civil rights would have worked itself out over time.

Small comfort for those being discriminated against and easy to say when you aren’t in that group.

HOW LONG did it take for civil rights to just “work itself out”? HOW LONG did it take for women’s rights to just “work itself out”?

What does that have to do with rights associated with property ownership? Apples/oranges.

JWK

The poison connected with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialism is, the most productive, hardworking wage earners across the country ___ some in our nation’s inner cities having two and three jobs to extricate themselves from poverty ___ are specifically targeted by Cortez’s taxation and robbed of the bread they have earned, which in turn discourages them to be productive, and thus begins a Nation’s decline.

Nothing. Just pointing out your free market solution was not working and is easy to advocate when you aren’t the one suffering under discrimination. So to be clear, those civil rights protesters were in the wrong in tour view when they did sit-ins at businesses.Preformatted text

[johnwk2]

@Borgia_dude

@johnwk2

@Bodecea

@Borgia_dude

@johnwk2

I believe a free market system, especially in today’s society, will quickly punish any business owner rejecting customers based on bigoted reasons.

So you would advocate no govt action back in the 50s and 60s. You think the civil rights would have worked itself out over time.

Small comfort for those being discriminated against and easy to say when you aren’t in that group.

HOW LONG did it take for civil rights to just “work itself out”? HOW LONG did it take for women’s rights to just “work itself out”?

What does that have to do with rights associated with property ownership? Apples/oranges.

JWK

The poison connected with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s socialism is, the most productive, hardworking wage earners across the country ___ some in our nation’s inner cities having two and three jobs to extricate themselves from poverty ___ are specifically targeted by Cortez’s taxation and robbed of the bread they have earned, which in turn discourages them to be productive, and thus begins a Nation’s decline.

Nothing. Just pointing out your free market solution was not working and is easy to advocate when you aren’t the one suffering under discrimination. So to be clear, those civil rights protesters were in the wrong in tour view when they did sit-ins at businesses.Preformatted text

Our free market system wasn’t working? I grew up in East Harlem and the South Bronx during the 50s and 60s and I still remember many of the thriving businesses, especially on 125th Street, were Black owned. I also remember many of the Black graduates of Benjamin Franklin High School, 116th Street and Pleasant Ave., found good paying jobs. I have no idea what you mean when you indicate the free market system wasn’t working.

Aside from that, the subject of the thread is about Ginsburg’s abuse of her office of public trust by circumventing constitutional provisions.

JWK

The rule being, when the text of the Constitution is unclear or disputes arise as to its meaning, the answer is to be found by documenting the intent of the framers and those who ratified the constitution, during the Constitutions’ framing and ratification debates. For example, what was the evil which the founders sought to prevent?

[Borgia_dude]

@johnwk2

Our free market system wasn’t working? I grew up in East Harlem and the South Bronx during the 50s and 60s and I still remember many of the thriving businesses, especially on 125th Street, were Black owned. I also remember many of the Black graduates of Benjamin Franklin High School, 116th Street and Pleasant Ave., found good paying jobs. I have no idea what you mean when you indicate the free market system wasn’t working.

You’re right. Clearly those civili rights protesters didn’t know how good they had it and were likely communists. They should have been happy in their place.

[johnwk2]

@Borgia_dude

@johnwk2

Our free market system wasn’t working? I grew up in East Harlem and the South Bronx during the 50s and 60s and I still remember many of the thriving businesses, especially on 125th Street, were Black owned. I also remember many of the Black graduates of Benjamin Franklin High School, 116th Street and Pleasant Ave., found good paying jobs. I have no idea what you mean when you indicate the free market system wasn’t working.

You’re right. Clearly those civili rights protesters didn’t know how good they had it and were likely communists. They should have been happy in their place.

Your innuendo is disgusting. What they should have been thankful for, as my father was when immigrating here, is the freedom to succeed or fail at one’s own hand, and that State laws making distinctions based upon race [Black Code Law] were forbidden by the Constitution.

Now let us get back to the subject of the thread, which is about Ginsburg’s abuse of her office of public trust by circumventing constitutional provisions.

JWK

“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is not a secret repository of substantive guarantees against unfairness.” Justice Clarence Thomas Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012)**

[Borgia_dude]

@johnwk2

Your innuendo is disgusting. What they should have been thankful for, as my father was when immigrating here, is the freedom to succeed or fail at one’s own hand, and that State laws making distinctions based upon race [Black Code Law] were forbidden by the Constitution.

I used the language that was common at the time. Civil rights protesters were commonly vilified as agitators. As communists.

And just to be crystal clear, you support the legal right of the businesses who chose to discriminate. To have whites only water fountains. To have whites only lunch counters.

Legally, you would have no problem returning to those days but you wouldn’t support the businesses with your dollars, I understand that.

[Samson_Corwell]

@johnwk2

I have no idea what you mean when you indicate the free market system wasn’t working.

The free market at work.

[johnwk2]

@Borgia_dude

@johnwk2

Your innuendo is disgusting. What they should have been thankful for, as my father was when immigrating here, is the freedom to succeed or fail at one’s own hand, and that State laws making distinctions based upon race [Black Code Law] were forbidden by the Constitution.

I used the language that was common at the time. Civil rights protesters were commonly vilified as agitators. As communists.

And just to be crystal clear, you support the legal right of the businesses who chose to discriminate. To have whites only water fountains. To have whites only lunch counters.

Legally, you would have no problem returning to those days but you wouldn’t support the businesses with your dollars, I understand that.

Returning to those days? Another disgusting innuendo.

No. You do not understand. I support abiding by the rule of law and especially our Constitution. That does not mean that I agree with every existing law or every provision of our Constitution.

And when it comes to rights associated with property ownership, you bet I am a firm defender of rights associated with property ownership. I have learned a very important principle from our nation’s history with regard to slavery ___ how Blacks were robbed of the property each had in their own labor.

JWK

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

[johnwk2]

@Samson_Corwell

@johnwk2

I have no idea what you mean when you indicate the free market system wasn’t working.

The free market at work.

Absolutely wrong! That is a protestor violating a store owners rights associated with property ownership! It has nothing to do with our free market system.

Now, just to be clear on the subject, Rosa Parks had the right idea when she refused to give up her seat to a white man while riding a bus run by the Montgomery City Government in spite of a local law requiring her to do so. Why was she right? She was right because the 14th Amendment specifically forbid law which made distinctions based upon race. The Montgomery City Government violated the 14th Amendment in making such a law and therefor Rosa Parks was right, unlike MLK with respect to the law and rights associated with property ownership.

JWK

"[T]he Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is not a secret repository of substantive guarantees against unfairness" Justice Clarence Thomas Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012)