STUPIDITY from Hartung

[Steve]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung -- is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from *discriminating* against their customers based on such characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect all
citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to interfere
in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist, Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you cannot
possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Steve]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:58:10 -0700 (PDT), "Tom Sr."

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at that time.
The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!
The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung -- is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from *discriminating* against their customers based on such characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

<LOL> Ignorance from leftist morons...

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist, Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.
*** WWWW000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000SSSSHH! ***
. . .

--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[David Hartung]

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung -- is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from *discriminating* against their customers based on such characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect all
citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to interfere
in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist, Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you cannot
possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.

2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

[Steve]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:17:27 -0500, David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung -- is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from *discriminating* against their customers based on such characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect all
citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to interfere
in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist, Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you cannot
possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, the Democrats "discovered" the commerce clause back under
FDR. Since most of what happens in the country is inevitably linked
to some sort of commerce, the Democrats, with the help of the SCOTUS,
has stretched it to embody almost everything, including the Federal
government's meddling in our schools.


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:17:27 -0500, David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung -- is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from *discriminating* against their customers based on such characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect all
citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to interfere
in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist, Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you cannot
possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, the Democrats "discovered" the commerce clause back under
FDR. Since most of what happens in the country is inevitably linked
to some sort of commerce, the Democrats, with the help of the SCOTUS,
has stretched it to embody almost everything, including the Federal
government's meddling in our schools.

And why they want a Carbon tax....

[Steve]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:40:39 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:17:27 -0500, David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung -- is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from *discriminating* against their customers based on such characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect all
citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to interfere
in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist, Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you cannot
possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, the Democrats "discovered" the commerce clause back under
FDR. Since most of what happens in the country is inevitably linked
to some sort of commerce, the Democrats, with the help of the SCOTUS,
has stretched it to embody almost everything, including the Federal
government's meddling in our schools.

And why they want a Carbon tax....

It's all part of the globalist's plans to cripple the USA's economic
power.


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:40:39 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:17:27 -0500, David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung -- is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from *discriminating* against their customers based on such characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect all
citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to interfere
in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist, Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you cannot
possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, the Democrats "discovered" the commerce clause back under
FDR. Since most of what happens in the country is inevitably linked
to some sort of commerce, the Democrats, with the help of the SCOTUS,
has stretched it to embody almost everything, including the Federal
government's meddling in our schools.

And why they want a Carbon tax....

It's all part of the globalist's plans to cripple the USA's economic
power.

exactly.....

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:17:27 -0500, David Hartung

{snip}

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

IMO, Title II of the Civil Rights Act should have been upheld under
Section 5 of the 14th (Congress's power to enforce the 14th). The rest
of the 14th is a restriction on government, but Section 5 ought to
permit Congress to pass ordinary legislation that restricts places of
public accommodation. However, SCOTUS disagrees with me (see City of
Boerne v. Flores).

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung
1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, the Democrats "discovered" the commerce clause back under
FDR. Since most of what happens in the country is inevitably linked
to some sort of commerce, the Democrats, with the help of the SCOTUS,
has stretched it to embody almost everything, including the Federal
government's meddling in our schools.

I think school funding is covered by the Taxing Power. Also as Scalia
laid out in his Raich concurrence, Title II of the CRA is most likely
authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause carrying into execution
the Commerce Clause power. The expansive view of the N&P Clause dates
back to 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland).

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:17:27 -0500, David Hartung

{snip}

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

IMO, Title II of the Civil Rights Act should have been upheld under
Section 5 of the 14th (Congress's power to enforce the 14th). The rest
of the 14th is a restriction on government, but Section 5 ought to
permit Congress to pass ordinary legislation that restricts places of
public accommodation. However, SCOTUS disagrees with me (see City of
Boerne v. Flores).

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung
1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, the Democrats "discovered" the commerce clause back under
FDR. Since most of what happens in the country is inevitably linked
to some sort of commerce, the Democrats, with the help of the SCOTUS,
has stretched it to embody almost everything, including the Federal
government's meddling in our schools.

I think school funding is covered by the Taxing Power.

The problem is the spending powers, the constitution (article one
section nine) requires a law be written to spend money....

["""""No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
time to time.""""""]

What "power" delegated in the constitution to the federal government can
be use to base a law on education?

answer here --->_________________________

The constitution and its amendments are only a few pages long so you
should be able to answer this in just minutes.....

[Steve]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:23:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:17:27 -0500, David Hartung

{snip}

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

IMO, Title II of the Civil Rights Act should have been upheld under
Section 5 of the 14th (Congress's power to enforce the 14th). The rest
of the 14th is a restriction on government, but Section 5 ought to
permit Congress to pass ordinary legislation that restricts places of
public accommodation. However, SCOTUS disagrees with me (see City of
Boerne v. Flores).

In order for Section 5 of the 14th to apply to actions of
non-government entities, such actions would have to be addressed in
the 14th.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung
1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, the Democrats "discovered" the commerce clause back under
FDR. Since most of what happens in the country is inevitably linked
to some sort of commerce, the Democrats, with the help of the SCOTUS,
has stretched it to embody almost everything, including the Federal
government's meddling in our schools.

I think school funding is covered by the Taxing Power. Also as Scalia
laid out in his Raich concurrence, Title II of the CRA is most likely
authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause carrying into execution
the Commerce Clause power. The expansive view of the N&P Clause dates
back to 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland).

--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:23:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:17:27 -0500, David Hartung

{snip}

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

IMO, Title II of the Civil Rights Act should have been upheld under
Section 5 of the 14th (Congress's power to enforce the 14th). The rest
of the 14th is a restriction on government, but Section 5 ought to
permit Congress to pass ordinary legislation that restricts places of
public accommodation. However, SCOTUS disagrees with me (see City of
Boerne v. Flores).

In order for Section 5 of the 14th to apply to actions of
non-government entities, such actions would have to be addressed in
the 14th.

Not all Constitutional scholars agree with you, although SCOTUS does.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=fss_papers

Post by Steve

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung
1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, the Democrats "discovered" the commerce clause back under
FDR. Since most of what happens in the country is inevitably linked
to some sort of commerce, the Democrats, with the help of the SCOTUS,
has stretched it to embody almost everything, including the Federal
government's meddling in our schools.

I think school funding is covered by the Taxing Power. Also as Scalia
laid out in his Raich concurrence, Title II of the CRA is most likely
authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause carrying into execution
the Commerce Clause power. The expansive view of the N&P Clause dates
back to 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland).

[Steve]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:21:55 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:23:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:17:27 -0500, David Hartung

{snip}

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

IMO, Title II of the Civil Rights Act should have been upheld under
Section 5 of the 14th (Congress's power to enforce the 14th). The rest
of the 14th is a restriction on government, but Section 5 ought to
permit Congress to pass ordinary legislation that restricts places of
public accommodation. However, SCOTUS disagrees with me (see City of
Boerne v. Flores).

In order for Section 5 of the 14th to apply to actions of
non-government entities, such actions would have to be addressed in
the 14th.

Not all Constitutional scholars agree with you, although SCOTUS does.

Apparently some Constitutional scholars are dumb shits....

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=fss_papers

Post by Steve

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung
1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, the Democrats "discovered" the commerce clause back under
FDR. Since most of what happens in the country is inevitably linked
to some sort of commerce, the Democrats, with the help of the SCOTUS,
has stretched it to embody almost everything, including the Federal
government's meddling in our schools.

I think school funding is covered by the Taxing Power. Also as Scalia
laid out in his Raich concurrence, Title II of the CRA is most likely
authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause carrying into execution
the Commerce Clause power. The expansive view of the N&P Clause dates
back to 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland).

--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order
for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung --
is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from
*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect
all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to
interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American
people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is
blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED
SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th,
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[David Hartung]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order
for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung --
is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from
*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect
all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to
interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American
people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is
blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED
SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th,
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order
for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung --
is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from
*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect
all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to
interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American
people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is
blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED
SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th,
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

So then you are saying that the 2nd Amendment has been confirmed during
the 200 years that Americans have been free to keep and bare arms and
these laws that Democrats are attempting to use to stop that right from
being exercised are unconstitutional, because of the long history of
freedom to keep and bear arms without any restrictions?
--
The Constitution of the
United States of America

*Preamble*
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I
Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited
by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to
the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound
to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in
another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no
Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without
the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office,
or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order
for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung --
is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from
*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect
all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to
interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American
people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is
blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED
SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th,
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.

Don't you agree local businesses should obey the law?

[David Hartung]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung --
is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect
all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to
interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is
blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED
SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.

Where is this text found in the Constitution?

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung --
is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect
all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to
interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is
blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED
SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.

Where is this text found in the Constitution?

Read the Supreme Court ruling, they spell out
the whole application.

Here is a summary of all the Supreme Court
rulings on the issue.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/federalcommercepower
.html

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung

--

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is

a

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to

protect

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily

to

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it

is

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE

DRED

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until

the

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.

Where is this text found in the Constitution?

Read the Supreme Court ruling, they spell out
the whole application.

So it doesn't exist NOT in an amendment or the original text>?

[David Hartung]

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung

--

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is

a

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to

protect

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily

to

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it

is

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE

DRED

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until

the

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.

Where is this text found in the Constitution?

Read the Supreme Court ruling, they spell out
the whole application.

In other words there is no Constitutional text.

By the way, the link came up with a 404 error.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung

--

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is

a

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to

protect

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily

to

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it

is

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE

DRED

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until

the

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.

Where is this text found in the Constitution?

Read the Supreme Court ruling, they spell out
the whole application.

In other words there is no Constitutional text.
By the way, the link came up with a 404 error.

To begin with Amendment 10 says the delegated powers are in the
constitution so if they are imagined by the Supreme Court to be there
then the Court has to convince enough people to get an amendment to add
what they say is there, to the actual constitution for it to be there.

That's called the constitutional process, the courts can't imagine it's
there and suddenly we all see it, it then has to be added in actual
text. Then it's "in" the constitution.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made
that ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it
*WAS* at that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung

--

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole
proprietorship) is

a

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens
(partnership., corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business
from choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to

protect

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

all citizens equally, it does not give the government
throatily

to

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung --
give your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is
that it

is

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE

DRED

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which
you cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the
anti-discrimination laws are based on. It was upheld by
SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce Clause Leftist morons
always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with
government actions, not with actions by non-government
entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until

the

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.

Where is this text found in the Constitution?

Read the Supreme Court ruling, they spell out
the whole application.

In other words there is no Constitutional text.
By the way, the link came up with a 404 error.

To begin with Amendment 10 says the delegated powers are in the
constitution so if they are imagined by the Supreme Court to be there
then the Court has to convince enough people to get an amendment to
add what they say is there, to the actual constitution for it to be
there.

Here is what the 10th Amendment says.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

That means the Commerce Clause IS a delegated
power in the Constitution. Thus Congress CAN regulate
everything from the content of baby formula to labels
on cigarette packaging.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 5:32:27 PM UTC-4, David

Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung

--

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is

a

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to

protect

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily

to

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it

is

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE

DRED

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-

discrimination

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with

government

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until

the

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.

Where is this text found in the Constitution?

Read the Supreme Court ruling, they spell out
the whole application.

In other words there is no Constitutional text.

"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution.


That is all the "Constitutional text" the
Supreme Court needs to uphold regulations on
commerce.



"The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power
under the Commerce Clause to enact the prohibitions
on discrimination contained in the public accommodations
section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar14.html#ixzz2uOV3n4xo

[David Hartung]

Post by Steve

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 5:32:27 PM UTC-4, David

Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made

that

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS*

at

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment,

Hartung

Post by David Hartung

--

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship)

is

Post by David Hartung

a

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to

protect

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily

to

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung --

give

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that

it

Post by David Hartung

is

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE

DRED

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-

discrimination

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under

the

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with

government

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until

the

Post by David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.

Where is this text found in the Constitution?

Read the Supreme Court ruling, they spell out
the whole application.

In other words there is no Constitutional text.

"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution.
That is all the "Constitutional text" the
Supreme Court needs to uphold regulations on
commerce.

AMONG the states, not within the states.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

{snip}

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman
"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution.
That is all the "Constitutional text" the
Supreme Court needs to uphold regulations on
commerce.

AMONG the states, not within the states.

Again David, quoting Justice Scalia:

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

[David Hartung]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman
"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution.
That is all the "Constitutional text" the
Supreme Court needs to uphold regulations on
commerce.

AMONG the states, not within the states.

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Your point?

You seem to have this idea that I will accept anything that Scalia
wrote, you are sadly mistaken.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman
"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution.
That is all the "Constitutional text" the
Supreme Court needs to uphold regulations on
commerce.

AMONG the states, not within the states.

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Your point?

Regulations of local commerce (e.g., Title II of the Civil Rights Act
requiring local hotels to serve blacks) are authorized by the Necessary
and Proper Clause carrying into execution the Commerce Clause Power.

Post by David Hartung
You seem to have this idea that I will accept anything that Scalia
wrote, you are sadly mistaken.

Scalia makes coherent arguments. Perhaps you disagree with him (I did
quite often), but you need to make a coherent rebuttal if you do.

[David Hartung]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by David Hartung

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman
"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution.
That is all the "Constitutional text" the
Supreme Court needs to uphold regulations on
commerce.

AMONG the states, not within the states.

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Your point?

Regulations of local commerce (e.g., Title II of the Civil Rights Act
requiring local hotels to serve blacks) are authorized by the Necessary
and Proper Clause carrying into execution the Commerce Clause Power.

Post by David Hartung
You seem to have this idea that I will accept anything that Scalia
wrote, you are sadly mistaken.

Scalia makes coherent arguments. Perhaps you disagree with him (I did
quite often), but you need to make a coherent rebuttal if you do.

Scalia's argument does not change the fact that the idea that the
Federal government can regulate anything under the sun using the
interstate commerce clause, is a recent innovation.

[Man of Mind]

Post by David Hartung
Scalia's argument does not change the fact that the idea that the
Federal government can regulate anything under the sun using the
interstate commerce clause, is a recent innovation.

You just strung a bunch of jingoisms together, David.

Try not to confuse that with having a 'coherent argument' again..

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by David Hartung

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman
"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution.
That is all the "Constitutional text" the
Supreme Court needs to uphold regulations on
commerce.

AMONG the states, not within the states.

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Your point?

Regulations of local commerce (e.g., Title II of the Civil Rights Act
requiring local hotels to serve blacks) are authorized by the Necessary
and Proper Clause carrying into execution the Commerce Clause Power.

Post by David Hartung
You seem to have this idea that I will accept anything that Scalia
wrote, you are sadly mistaken.

Scalia makes coherent arguments. Perhaps you disagree with him (I did
quite often), but you need to make a coherent rebuttal if you do.

Scalia's argument does not change the fact that the idea that the
Federal government can regulate anything under the sun using the
interstate commerce clause, is a recent innovation.

That's only true because there was no need for such regulations until
the industrial revolution and the automobile led to a national economy.
That is, it was an unanswered question for 150 years, as opposed to your
claim that SCOTUS reversed itself.

Scalia based his analysis on the text of the Constitution, interpreting
the words as they were commonly understood at the time they were
ratified. The above quote summarizes the results of that analysis.
What in the original meaning of the words (be specific, point to the
words and their proper meanings) in the N&P and Commerce Clause did
Scalia get wrong?

[Man of Mind]

....

Post by David Hartung

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman
"The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, US Constitution.
That is all the "Constitutional text" the
Supreme Court needs to uphold regulations on
commerce.

AMONG the states, not within the states.

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Your point?

*>LOL!<* Are you still trying to pretend that there is doubt
as to how the Commerce Clause came into existence?

[Steve]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights. Of course liberals want the
government dictating as much of our private activity as possible so
diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with them.

The commerce clause justifies, in the eyes of certain courts, the
government dictating who a business must sell their goods to, and in
so doing, justify a customer's "right" to demand that a business
deliver product specifications that the business had chosen not to
offer, as in the case of a customer demanding a personalized
decorative script on a cake.

It's not a very big stretch to see the courts justifying regulations
about what businesses you must buy from. Will a minority business
owner someday claim to be illegally discriminated because a customer
walked past his store and into a competitor's store. Will a liberal
court rule in his favor?

Remember, that the commerce clause was already used to justify
regulating wheat grown for the farmer's own use.


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights.

The federal regulation of business has been an
EXPANSION of individual rights, namely the individual
consumer. We are no longer a nation of "Whites Only"
and "Jews Need Not Apply". No one wants to go back to
those days except the Libertarian fringe.

It is not too much to ask businesses to treat the
public - the whole public - equally.

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:36:02 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights.

The federal regulation of business has been an
EXPANSION of individual rights, namely the individual

Nonsense.. the government is dictating what a business must sell...

Post by Mitchell Holman
consumer. We are no longer a nation of "Whites Only"
and "Jews Need Not Apply". No one wants to go back to
those days except the Libertarian fringe.
It is not too much to ask businesses to treat the
public - the whole public - equally.

Yeah, it is too much.. As a non government entity I should be free to
shun anybody I want..


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:36:02 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are
not themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities
that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from
the Necessary and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example
of slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights.

The federal regulation of business has been an
EXPANSION of individual rights, namely the individual

Nonsense.. the government is dictating what a business must sell...

No, just dictating what business CANNOT sell.

Impure products, unsafe products, untested products.

Post by Steve

Post by Mitchell Holman
consumer. We are no longer a nation of "Whites Only"
and "Jews Need Not Apply". No one wants to go back to
those days except the Libertarian fringe.
It is not too much to ask businesses to treat the
public - the whole public - equally.

Yeah, it is too much.. As a non government entity I should be free to
shun anybody I want..

Don't you think businesses should obey the law?

[David Hartung]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:36:02 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are
not themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities
that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from
the Necessary and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example
of slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights.

The federal regulation of business has been an
EXPANSION of individual rights, namely the individual

Nonsense.. the government is dictating what a business must sell...

No, just dictating what business CANNOT sell.
Impure products, unsafe products, untested products.

What gives the government the authority to dictate such things?

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:36:02 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are
not themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities
that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from
the Necessary and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example
of slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights.

The federal regulation of business has been an
EXPANSION of individual rights, namely the individual

Nonsense.. the government is dictating what a business must sell...

No, just dictating what business CANNOT sell.
Impure products, unsafe products, untested products.

What gives the government the authority to dictate such things?

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

PS: You are too young to remember the flap over
the government denying drug companies the "right" to
market Thalidomide in the US because it hadn't been
tested enough. Thanks to that "burdensome regulation"
America was spared the European and Canadian horror
of thousands of armless and legless babies.


http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/controversies/thalid
omide

https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-
safety-and-regulation

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:01:45 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:36:02 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are
not themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities
that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from
the Necessary and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example
of slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights.

The federal regulation of business has been an
EXPANSION of individual rights, namely the individual

Nonsense.. the government is dictating what a business must sell...

No, just dictating what business CANNOT sell.

Actually, the government will dictate that a baker must sell a wedding
cake with the names of same sex couples.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Impure products, unsafe products, untested products.

Post by Steve

Post by Mitchell Holman
consumer. We are no longer a nation of "Whites Only"
and "Jews Need Not Apply". No one wants to go back to
those days except the Libertarian fringe.
It is not too much to ask businesses to treat the
public - the whole public - equally.

Yeah, it is too much.. As a non government entity I should be free to
shun anybody I want..

Don't you think businesses should obey the law?

I think that anyone who obeys a law before first determining if it's
his/her best interest to do so is a moron.


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights. Of course liberals want the
government dictating as much of our private activity as possible so
diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with them.

Are you calling Scalia a liberal?

Post by Steve
The commerce clause justifies, in the eyes of certain courts, the
government dictating who a business must sell their goods to, and in
so doing, justify a customer's "right" to demand that a business
deliver product specifications that the business had chosen not to
offer, as in the case of a customer demanding a personalized
decorative script on a cake.
It's not a very big stretch to see the courts justifying regulations
about what businesses you must buy from. Will a minority business
owner someday claim to be illegally discriminated because a customer
walked past his store and into a competitor's store. Will a liberal
court rule in his favor?
Remember, that the commerce clause was already used to justify
regulating wheat grown for the farmer's own use.
--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:47:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights. Of course liberals want the
government dictating as much of our private activity as possible so
diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with them.

Are you calling Scalia a liberal?

No, are you?

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
The commerce clause justifies, in the eyes of certain courts, the
government dictating who a business must sell their goods to, and in
so doing, justify a customer's "right" to demand that a business
deliver product specifications that the business had chosen not to
offer, as in the case of a customer demanding a personalized
decorative script on a cake.
It's not a very big stretch to see the courts justifying regulations
about what businesses you must buy from. Will a minority business
owner someday claim to be illegally discriminated because a customer
walked past his store and into a competitor's store. Will a liberal
court rule in his favor?
Remember, that the commerce clause was already used to justify
regulating wheat grown for the farmer's own use.
--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[David Hartung]

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:47:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights. Of course liberals want the
government dictating as much of our private activity as possible so
diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with them.

Are you calling Scalia a liberal?

No, are you?

Josh seems to think that because Scalia was the Courts leading
conservative, and is still respected by the conservative community, that
we must accept everything he said, and that is assuming that Josh is
relating his positions correctly.

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:54:19 -0500, David Hartung

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:47:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights. Of course liberals want the
government dictating as much of our private activity as possible so
diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with them.

Are you calling Scalia a liberal?

No, are you?

Josh seems to think that because Scalia was the Courts leading
conservative, and is still respected by the conservative community, that
we must accept everything he said, and that is assuming that Josh is
relating his positions correctly.

Well, Josh is a Liberal and liberals assume that of Conservatives
because they themselves accept everything their liberal leaders say...


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:47:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights. Of course liberals want the
government dictating as much of our private activity as possible so
diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with them.

Are you calling Scalia a liberal?

No, are you?

No. The quote above is from Scalia. So, it isn't just liberals who
have this expansive view of what Congress can regulate.

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:11:43 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:47:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights. Of course liberals want the
government dictating as much of our private activity as possible so
diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with them.

Are you calling Scalia a liberal?

No, are you?

No. The quote above is from Scalia. So, it isn't just liberals who
have this expansive view of what Congress can regulate.

Scalia's quote, however does not refute my statement that "liberals
want the government dictating as much of our private activity as
possible so diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with
them."


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Steve
Scalia's quote, however does not refute my statement that "liberals
want the government dictating as much of our private activity as
possible so diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with
them."

That's because your 'straw man' is so laughably wrong that
you could never prove such to be the case for liberals.

You're basically just making shit up to pass judgement
on others who do not share your empty-minded and shallow
interpretation of the world around you..


Examples follow..
--
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:04:01 -0400
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"<SNORT> well, actually, spin produces centrifugal force, which is
a force directed away from the center of rotation, Dummy.
That centrifugal force is in opposition to any gravitational
force of an object."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
..
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500 news: <***@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."

"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:11:43 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:47:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights. Of course liberals want the
government dictating as much of our private activity as possible so
diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with them.

Are you calling Scalia a liberal?

No, are you?

No. The quote above is from Scalia. So, it isn't just liberals who
have this expansive view of what Congress can regulate.

Scalia's quote, however does not refute my statement that "liberals
want the government dictating as much of our private activity as
possible so diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with
them."

I strongly suspect that Scalia, like most conservatives, believes Title
II of the CRA is good policy (in addition to being constitutional).

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:05:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:11:43 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:47:26 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

The SCOTUS has turned the Commerce clause into the biggest example of
slippery slope the country has ever seen. It's also a huge
diminishment of the individual's rights. Of course liberals want the
government dictating as much of our private activity as possible so
diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with them.

Are you calling Scalia a liberal?

No, are you?

No. The quote above is from Scalia. So, it isn't just liberals who
have this expansive view of what Congress can regulate.

Scalia's quote, however does not refute my statement that "liberals
want the government dictating as much of our private activity as
possible so diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with
them."

I strongly suspect that Scalia, like most conservatives, believes Title
II of the CRA is good policy (in addition to being constitutional).

<SHRUG>

1st: Am I supposed to care what you strongly believe?

2nd: Am I supposed to believe that Scalia's quote indicates that he
wants the government dictating as much of our private activity as
possible so diminishment of the individual's rights is just fine with
him?"

At any rate, I don't....


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Necessary and proper requires a *FOREGOING POWER* to write the laws.
SO where doe the federal power to regulate NON interstate commerce
originate?

First you need a foregoing power, to base the laws on. And interstate
commerce power is NOT a power to make laws to regulate in-State
commerce. If they had wanted the States commerce to be regulated by
congress, the people drafting the constitution would have left off the
"interstate" and just said "commerce" not "interstate commerce".

There is a clear difference between interstate and in-state commerce.
And when it comes to "effecting" commerce, the Feds manage to effect the
in-state commerce when they make interstate laws so by your own logic,
the interstate laws should be limited when they effect in-state
commerce....

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Necessary and proper requires a *FOREGOING POWER* to write the laws.
SO where doe the federal power to regulate NON interstate commerce
originate?

The foregoing power is the power to regulate *interstate* commerce
because the regulation of intrastate commerce substantially affects
*interstate* commerce.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
First you need a foregoing power, to base the laws on. And interstate
commerce power is NOT a power to make laws to regulate in-State
commerce. If they had wanted the States commerce to be regulated by
congress, the people drafting the constitution would have left off the
"interstate" and just said "commerce" not "interstate commerce".
There is a clear difference between interstate and in-state commerce.
And when it comes to "effecting" commerce, the Feds manage to effect the
in-state commerce when they make interstate laws so by your own logic,
the interstate laws should be limited when they effect in-state
commerce....

There is nothing in the Constitution that limits Congress's ability to
regulate interstate commerce because that regulation might affect
intrastate commerce.

[David Hartung]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Necessary and proper requires a *FOREGOING POWER* to write the laws.
SO where doe the federal power to regulate NON interstate commerce
originate?

The foregoing power is the power to regulate *interstate* commerce
because the regulation of intrastate commerce substantially affects
*interstate* commerce.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
First you need a foregoing power, to base the laws on. And interstate
commerce power is NOT a power to make laws to regulate in-State
commerce. If they had wanted the States commerce to be regulated by
congress, the people drafting the constitution would have left off the
"interstate" and just said "commerce" not "interstate commerce".
There is a clear difference between interstate and in-state commerce.
And when it comes to "effecting" commerce, the Feds manage to effect the
in-state commerce when they make interstate laws so by your own logic,
the interstate laws should be limited when they effect in-state
commerce....

There is nothing in the Constitution that limits Congress's ability to
regulate interstate commerce because that regulation might affect
intrastate commerce.

There is nothing in the Constitution which grants Congress the authority
to regulate intrastate commerce, which means that they do not have such
authority.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:04:38 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
"Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not
themselves part of interstate commerce (including activities that have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce) derives from the Necessary
and Proper Clause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Necessary and proper requires a *FOREGOING POWER* to write the laws.
SO where doe the federal power to regulate NON interstate commerce
originate?

The foregoing power is the power to regulate *interstate* commerce
because the regulation of intrastate commerce substantially affects
*interstate* commerce.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
First you need a foregoing power, to base the laws on. And interstate
commerce power is NOT a power to make laws to regulate in-State
commerce. If they had wanted the States commerce to be regulated by
congress, the people drafting the constitution would have left off the
"interstate" and just said "commerce" not "interstate commerce".
There is a clear difference between interstate and in-state commerce.
And when it comes to "effecting" commerce, the Feds manage to effect the
in-state commerce when they make interstate laws so by your own logic,
the interstate laws should be limited when they effect in-state
commerce....

There is nothing in the Constitution that limits Congress's ability to
regulate interstate commerce because that regulation might affect
intrastate commerce.

There is nothing in the Constitution which grants Congress the authority
to regulate intrastate commerce, which means that they do not have such
authority.

Repeating your conclusion without addressing the argument to the
contrary (presented above) is rather lame.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung --
is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect
all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to
interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is
blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED
SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.
Don't you agree local businesses should obey the law?

They should obey the constitution since the law is NOT derived from the
constitution.

No where in the constitution does it confer any such power to the
Federal Government.... things that might effect commerce were NOT
called for in the commerce clause and reading the white space between
the lines doesn't reveal that power either. You might as well just have
written the federal government can regulate *ALL* commerce. But what
they did write was "interstate commerce". Like interstate highways....
they are the highways that connect States NOT the highways inside a
State. If a highway passes near or crosses under an interstate
highway... the Federal government doesn't set the speed limits on it.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung --
is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect
all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to
interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is
blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED
SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.
Don't you agree local businesses should obey the law?

They should obey the constitution since the law is NOT derived from the
constitution.

Voter ID and abortion laws are not in the
Constitution either. Does that mean they are not
the law?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in

order

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung

--

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners

from

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is

a

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to

protect

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

all citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily

to

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

interfere in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the

American

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give
your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it

is

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist,
Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE

DRED

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve

SCOTT DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you
cannot possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination
laws are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the
Commerce Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The

14th,

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
as any knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government
actions, not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until

the

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by David Hartung

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by David Hartung
1960s.

Wrong. The Supreme Court was using that "understanding"
of the Commerce Clause in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Still over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Commerce Clause allows for federal restrictions
on local commerce. That is the LAW.
Don't you agree local businesses should obey the law?

They should obey the constitution since the law is NOT derived from the
constitution.

Voter ID and abortion laws are not in the
Constitution either. Does that mean they are not
the law?

Voter Amendments are in the constitution and Abortion is NOT.....
Murder/abortion is a State crime unless there is some kind of
circumstance that warrants federal intervention like it's a Federal
employee or on Federal property.

I'm fine with any State setting their own murder laws to include or
exclude abortion as murder. I'll just drive around the states that
allow murder.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Steve
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:48:55 -0500, David Hartung

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that
ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at
that time.

Or it could have simply been a poor decision by the court.

The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order
for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!

Or the court could have simply made a better decision.

The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung --
is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from
*discriminating* against their customers based on such
characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

1. A business owned by a private citizen (sole proprietorship) is a
private business.
2. A business owned a group of private citizens (partnership.,
corporation, LLC) is a private business.
3. Nothing in the 14th Amendment prevents a private business from
choosing its customer.
4. While the 14th Amendment does require the government to protect all
citizens equally, it does not give the government throatily to interfere
in private (sector) commerce.

You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American
people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give your
serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is
blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an
extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist, Southern,
white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED SCOTT
DECISION.

You make assumptions based upon your (blind) beliefs which you cannot
possibly support.

Of course, the 14th amendment is NOT what the anti-discrimination laws
are based on. It was upheld by SCOTUS as permitted under the Commerce
Clause Leftist morons always confuse that issue. The 14th, as any
knowledgeable person knows, has only to do with government actions,
not with actions by non-government entities.

1. Tom often does not know what Tom thinks he knows.

That is a common Liberal problem....

Liberals/Progressives are examples of the fact that lies to others and
themselves and rewriting history means they have no real facts to base
their decisions on and that means seeking progress is full of perils
since what they think they know.... they really don't know. In which
case progress becomes a fools errand.

Post by David Hartung
2. That understanding of the commerce clause did not exist until the
1960s. This is a meaning that a liberal court magically "found" over 170
years after the Constitution was ratified.

[Man of Mind]

Did you read the book?

Several times, you?

Nope, thought "1984" was much better at telling the tale
of what a totalitarian regime of the future would be like.
Huxley's "Brave New World" wasn't even in the same league,
as far as I was concerned, but "Animal Farm" didn't hold any
special appeal to me after two-three chapters, as didn't
"Atlas Shrugged".

So you read a part of the book and feel qualified

That would be incorrect.. I read part of that book, and
have read several synopsis' that compared that book to other
books, such as I have mentioned, in political essays, which
you clearly have not read, or heard of except in an unfavorable
manner. I did read "Atlas Shrugged" completely, and still find
many similarities, albeit unintentional, to modern life.


So, who was doing the judging, again?

By the way, I haven't read it since I was about 15.

Hrmm, can't say that I've had much time for reading books,
in a complete and fascinated way, over the past two months.

But among those recently read, Chris Mooney's "Republican
War On Science", Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" and Michio
Kaku's "The Science of the Mind" is currently being neglected..


So, don't try to sound so glib about the sciences in your
replies, I'm already well aware of how you will try to downplay
any facts or findings that disagree with your beliefs.


And, you don't hold any degree's in the subject of science,
so you'll maybe understand my amusement at how you twist
and squirm when I'm pointing you down the road to knowledge..

You probably won't get it, how the story reflects that..
Oh well..

The problem with your comments is

No, that is completely ass-backwards. It's the Rethuglicans.
such as those who are still supporting Trump, who are the
'authoritatians' that you've poorly attempted to mis-cast
as being the Clintons' 'going on record' as saying such..


As I said..

[Ted&Alice]

Post by Man of Mind

Did you read the book?

Several times, you?

Nope, thought "1984" was much better at telling the tale
of what a totalitarian regime of the future would be like.
Huxley's "Brave New World" wasn't even in the same league,
as far as I was concerned, but "Animal Farm" didn't hold any
special appeal to me after two-three chapters, as didn't
"Atlas Shrugged".

So you read a part of the book and feel qualified

That would be incorrect.. I read part of that book, and
have read several synopsis'

The plural of synopsis is synopses, you illiterate little dope, not
synopsis'!

Post by Man of Mind
So, who was doing the judging, again?

By the way, I haven't read it since I was about 15.

Hrmm, can't say that I've had much time for reading books,
in a complete and fascinated way, over the past two months.
But among those recently read, Chris Mooney's "Republican
War On Science", Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" and Michio
Kaku's "The Science of the Mind" is currently being neglected..
So, don't try to sound so glib about the sciences in your
replies, I'm already well aware of how you will try to downplay
any facts or findings that disagree with your beliefs.
And, you don't hold any degree's in the subject of science,

Ah, there's that specious apostrophe again. Any degree's what, you
illiterate moron?

But I do have multiple *degrees* in science, and if David wants me to,
I'll be happy to explain to him in detail how and why you're just a silly
little buffoon.

Starting with ...

[Man of Mind]

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Did you read the book?

Several times, you?

Nope, thought "1984" was much better at telling the tale
of what a totalitarian regime of the future would be like.
Huxley's "Brave New World" wasn't even in the same league,
as far as I was concerned, but "Animal Farm" didn't hold any
special appeal to me after two-three chapters, as didn't
"Atlas Shrugged".

So you read a part of the book and feel qualified

That would be incorrect.. I read part of that book, and
have read several synopsis' that compared that book to other
books, such as I have mentioned, in political essays, which
you clearly have not read, or heard of except in an unfavorable
manner. I did read "Atlas Shrugged" completely, and still find
many similarities, albeit unintentional, to modern life.
So, who was doing the judging, again?

The plural of synopsis is synopses

What was that you were saying about 'spelling flames', Tard?


*>LOL!<*

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

By the way, I haven't read it since I was about 15.

Hrmm, can't say that I've had much time for reading books,
in a complete and fascinated way, over the past two months.
But among those recently read, Chris Mooney's "Republican
War On Science", Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" and Michio
Kaku's "The Science of the Mind" is currently being neglected..
So, don't try to sound so glib about the sciences in your
replies, I'm already well aware of how you will try to downplay
any facts or findings that disagree with your beliefs.
And, you don't hold any degree's in the subject of science,
so you'll maybe understand my amusement at how you twist
and squirm when I'm pointing you down the road to knowledge..

Ah, there's that specious apostrophe

Awww, did I get the little 'nym Tard&Malice in a lather again?

Post by Ted&Alice
But I do have multiple *degrees* in science

I find that to be entirely doubtful, for obvious reasons..


Example follows..
--
Ted&Alice <***@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:59:38 GMT
Message-ID:
<1611476456497115897.677768sam.m.tedesco-***@news.easynews.com>


"If you wanna break it down to which of the four fundamental
forces is most instrumental in causing the centripetal
acceleration of a ball on a string, then it's coulombic."

[Ted&Alice]

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Did you read the book?

Several times, you?

Nope, thought "1984" was much better at telling the tale
of what a totalitarian regime of the future would be like.
Huxley's "Brave New World" wasn't even in the same league,
as far as I was concerned, but "Animal Farm" didn't hold any
special appeal to me after two-three chapters, as didn't
"Atlas Shrugged".

So you read a part of the book and feel qualified

That would be incorrect.. I read part of that book, and
have read several synopsis' that compared that book to other
books, such as I have mentioned, in political essays, which
you clearly have not read, or heard of except in an unfavorable
manner. I did read "Atlas Shrugged" completely, and still find
many similarities, albeit unintentional, to modern life.
So, who was doing the judging, again?

The plural of synopsis is synopses

What was that you were saying about 'spelling flames', Tard?

Cite. You're making things up, as usual.

Post by Man of Mind
*>LOL!<*

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

By the way, I haven't read it since I was about 15.

Hrmm, can't say that I've had much time for reading books,
in a complete and fascinated way, over the past two months.
But among those recently read, Chris Mooney's "Republican
War On Science", Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" and Michio
Kaku's "The Science of the Mind" is currently being neglected..
So, don't try to sound so glib about the sciences in your
replies, I'm already well aware of how you will try to downplay
any facts or findings that disagree with your beliefs.
And, you don't hold any degree's in the subject of science,
so you'll maybe understand my amusement at how you twist
and squirm when I'm pointing you down the road to knowledge..

Ah, there's that specious apostrophe

Awww, did I get the little 'nym Tard&Malice in a lather again?

"Lather"? I'm laughing at you, Kurt.

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Ted&Alice
But I do have multiple *degrees* in science

I find that to be entirely doubtful, for obvious reasons..

Your insecurities and your fragile ego. Those are the main reasons.

Post by Man of Mind
Example follows..

Yep, starting with that one. (The 'coulombic' flame.) It's yet one more way
that you've made a complete ass of yourself. Elaboration to follow. Stay
tuned.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind
So, who was doing the judging, again?

The plural of synopsis is synopses

What was that you were saying about 'spelling flames', Tard?

Cite. You're making things up, as usual.

*>LOL!<*

You have a 'convenient' memory, Mr.X-No-Archive: Yes

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind
And, you don't hold any degree's in the subject of science,
so you'll maybe understand my amusement at how you twist
and squirm when I'm pointing you down the road to knowledge..

Ah, there's that specious apostrophe

Awww, did I get the little 'nym Tard&Malice in a lather again?

"Lather"?

Lather..

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Ted&Alice
But I do have multiple *degrees* in science

I find that to be entirely doubtful, for obvious reasons..

My insecurities and my fragile ego

Yes, that would be a reasonable explanation..

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind
Example follows..

Yep, starting with that one. (The 'coulombic' flame.)

It's not a 'flame', you simpleton 'tard..

Post by Ted&Alice
that you've made a complete ass of yourself

You keep saying that, but it never seems to be anything but
a mild case of projection on your own behalf, Tard..

[DoD]

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Did you read the book?

Several times, you?

Nope, thought "1984" was much better at telling the tale
of what a totalitarian regime of the future would be like.
Huxley's "Brave New World" wasn't even in the same league,
as far as I was concerned, but "Animal Farm" didn't hold any
special appeal to me after two-three chapters, as didn't
"Atlas Shrugged".

So you read a part of the book and feel qualified

That would be incorrect.. I read part of that book, and
have read several synopsis'

The plural of synopsis is synopses, you illiterate little dope, not
synopsis'!

And he calls himself a higher intellect? lol

[David Hartung]

Post by DoD

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Did you read the book?

Several times, you?

Nope, thought "1984" was much better at telling the tale
of what a totalitarian regime of the future would be like.
Huxley's "Brave New World" wasn't even in the same league,
as far as I was concerned, but "Animal Farm" didn't hold any
special appeal to me after two-three chapters, as didn't
"Atlas Shrugged".

So you read a part of the book and feel qualified

That would be incorrect.. I read part of that book, and
have read several synopsis'

The plural of synopsis is synopses, you illiterate little dope, not
synopsis'!

And he calls himself a higher intellect? lol

We all tend to believe that we are inherently smarter and more rational
than those who oppose it, Kurt however seems to have the disease in an
advanced form.

[DoD]

Post by David Hartung

Post by DoD

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Did you read the book?

Several times, you?

Nope, thought "1984" was much better at telling the tale
of what a totalitarian regime of the future would be like.
Huxley's "Brave New World" wasn't even in the same league,
as far as I was concerned, but "Animal Farm" didn't hold any
special appeal to me after two-three chapters, as didn't
"Atlas Shrugged".

So you read a part of the book and feel qualified

That would be incorrect.. I read part of that book, and
have read several synopsis'

The plural of synopsis is synopses, you illiterate little dope, not
synopsis'!

And he calls himself a higher intellect? lol

We all tend to believe that we are inherently smarter and more rational
than those who oppose it,

That is very true.

Post by David Hartung
Kurt however seems to have the disease in an advanced form.

lol

[Ted&Alice]

Post by DoD

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Did you read the book?

Several times, you?

Nope, thought "1984" was much better at telling the tale
of what a totalitarian regime of the future would be like.
Huxley's "Brave New World" wasn't even in the same league,
as far as I was concerned, but "Animal Farm" didn't hold any
special appeal to me after two-three chapters, as didn't
"Atlas Shrugged".

So you read a part of the book and feel qualified

That would be incorrect.. I read part of that book, and
have read several synopsis'

The plural of synopsis is synopses, you illiterate little dope, not
synopsis'!

And he calls himself a higher intellect? lol

Only in his own little mind, of course.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by DoD
And he calls himself a higher intellect? lol

Only in his own little mind, of course.

Still in denial, slaphead?


*>chuckling<*
--
Ted&Alice <***@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:59:38 GMT
Message-ID:
<1611476456497115897.677768sam.m.tedesco-***@news.easynews.com>


"If you wanna break it down to which of the four fundamental
forces is most instrumental in causing the centripetal
acceleration of a ball on a string, then it's coulombic."

[Ted&Alice]

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by DoD
And he calls himself a higher intellect? lol

Only in his own little mind, of course.

Still in denial, slaphead?
*>chuckling<*

Sure, if that's what you wanna think, I don't have a problem with it.

[David Hartung]

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Man of Mind

Did you read the book?

Several times, you?

Nope, thought "1984" was much better at telling the tale
of what a totalitarian regime of the future would be like.
Huxley's "Brave New World" wasn't even in the same league,
as far as I was concerned, but "Animal Farm" didn't hold any
special appeal to me after two-three chapters, as didn't
"Atlas Shrugged".

So you read a part of the book and feel qualified

That would be incorrect.. I read part of that book, and
have read several synopsis'

The plural of synopsis is synopses, you illiterate little dope, not
synopsis'!

Post by Man of Mind
So, who was doing the judging, again?

By the way, I haven't read it since I was about 15.

Hrmm, can't say that I've had much time for reading books,
in a complete and fascinated way, over the past two months.
But among those recently read, Chris Mooney's "Republican
War On Science", Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" and Michio
Kaku's "The Science of the Mind" is currently being neglected..
So, don't try to sound so glib about the sciences in your
replies, I'm already well aware of how you will try to downplay
any facts or findings that disagree with your beliefs.
And, you don't hold any degree's in the subject of science,

Ah, there's that specious apostrophe again. Any degree's what, you
illiterate moron?
But I do have multiple *degrees* in science, and if David wants me to,
I'll be happy to explain to him in detail how and why you're just a silly
little buffoon.
Starting with ...

Kurt is very proud of his degree, and I suppose that is proper, but he
also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree (in
physics?) his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

[Man of Mind]

Post by David Hartung
Kurt is very proud of his degree, and I suppose that is proper,

Again, you casting aspersions, in an effort to downplay a
formal education that you do not possess. Your ignorance
is not equivalent to that, nor is your pseudo-reasoning.

Post by David Hartung
he also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree
his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

No, quite the opposite..

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:29:37 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by David Hartung
Kurt is very proud of his degree, and I suppose that is proper,

Again, you casting aspersions, in an effort to downplay a
formal education that you do not possess. Your ignorance
is not equivalent to that, nor is your pseudo-reasoning.

Post by David Hartung
he also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree
his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

No, quite the opposite..

Actually, the fact that Lochner can't even support himself certainly
questions the quality of his education.


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by David Hartung
Kurt is very proud of his degree, and I suppose that is proper,

Again, you casting aspersions, in an effort to downplay a
formal education that you do not possess. Your ignorance
is not equivalent to that, nor is your pseudo-reasoning.

Post by David Hartung
he also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree
his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

No, quite the opposite..

Actually, the fact that Lochner can't even support himself

So, what you're saying is that you happen to know this to
be a 'fact', and precisely how would that be germane to a
discussion, little 'magnetic capacitors' Stevie?


*>LOL!<* ..
--
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:04:01 -0400
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"<SNORT> well, actually, spin produces centrifugal force, which is
a force directed away from the center of rotation, Dummy.
That centrifugal force is in opposition to any gravitational
force of an object."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
..
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500 news: <***@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."

"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:47:06 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by David Hartung
Kurt is very proud of his degree, and I suppose that is proper,

Again, you casting aspersions, in an effort to downplay a
formal education that you do not possess. Your ignorance
is not equivalent to that, nor is your pseudo-reasoning.

Post by David Hartung
he also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree
his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

No, quite the opposite..

Actually, the fact that Lochner can't even support himself

So, what you're saying is that you happen to know this to
be a 'fact', and precisely how would that be germane to a
discussion, little 'magnetic capacitors' Stevie?

Not what I'm saying at all Loser, but it's a reasonable assumption
that you can't support yourself. and the relevance is that an
adequate education would provide you the ability to support yourself.

Post by Man of Mind
*>LOL!<* ..

--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
Actually, the fact that Lochner can't even support himself

So, what you're saying is that you happen to know this to
be a 'fact', and precisely how would that be germane to a
discussion, little 'magnetic capacitors' Stevie?

Not what I'm saying at all

Sure it is, you're just 'assuming' something so as to avoid
how your own ignorance has been exposed as a weak-minded
excuse for your petty remarks.


Let's see how you're going to play that assumption out.


Here's the premise..

Post by Steve
it's a reasonable assumption that you can't support yourself.

My tax accountant would laugh at that..

Post by Steve
the relevance is that an adequate education would provide
you the ability to support yourself.

Indeed, it has. So what's your problem with that, such that
you're again resorting to 'false absolutes' like only a right-wing
zealot sputtering propaganda can, you blathering simpleton?


Oh, and did you ever look up why you're wrong about these?
--
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:04:01 -0400
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"<SNORT> well, actually, spin produces centrifugal force, which is
a force directed away from the center of rotation, Dummy.
That centrifugal force is in opposition to any gravitational
force of an object."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
..
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500 news: <***@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."

"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:27:02 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
Actually, the fact that Lochner can't even support himself

So, what you're saying is that you happen to know this to
be a 'fact', and precisely how would that be germane to a
discussion, little 'magnetic capacitors' Stevie?

Not what I'm saying at all

Sure it is, you're just 'assuming' something so as to avoid
how your own ignorance has been exposed as a weak-minded
excuse for your petty remarks.
Let's see how you're going to play that assumption out.
Here's the premise..

Post by Steve
it's a reasonable assumption that you can't support yourself.

My tax accountant would laugh at that..

<LOL> and I laugh at that bit of nonsense, Dummy...

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
the relevance is that an adequate education would provide
you the ability to support yourself.

Indeed, it has. So what's your problem with that, such that
you're again resorting to 'false absolutes' like only a right-wing
zealot sputtering propaganda can, you blathering simpleton?
Oh, and did you ever look up why you're wrong about these?

--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
Not what I'm saying at all

Sure it is, you're just 'assuming' something so as to avoid
how your own ignorance has been exposed as a weak-minded
excuse for your petty remarks.
Let's see how you're going to play that assumption out.
Here's the premise..

Post by Steve
it's a reasonable assumption that you can't support yourself.

My tax accountant would laugh at that..

<LOL> and I laugh at that bit of nonsense

He does the taxes of the folks I work with, too..


Say, did you ever figure out why you were wrong about
'centrifugal force' and 'magnetic capacitors', Dummy?
--
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:04:01 -0400
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"<SNORT> well, actually, spin produces centrifugal force, which is
a force directed away from the center of rotation, Dummy.
That centrifugal force is in opposition to any gravitational
force of an object."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
..
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500 news: <***@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."

"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:57:48 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
Not what I'm saying at all

Sure it is, you're just 'assuming' something so as to avoid
how your own ignorance has been exposed as a weak-minded
excuse for your petty remarks.
Let's see how you're going to play that assumption out.
Here's the premise..

Post by Steve
it's a reasonable assumption that you can't support yourself.

My tax accountant would laugh at that..

<LOL> and I laugh at that bit of nonsense

He does the taxes of the folks I work with, too..

I doubt that your street corner begging friends need a tax accountant
any more than you do, Licknuts...

Post by Man of Mind
Say, did you ever figure out why you were wrong about
'centrifugal force' and 'magnetic capacitors', Dummy?

--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
<LOL> and I laugh at that bit of nonsense

He does the taxes of the folks I work with, too..

I doubt that your street corner begging

It's funny watching you try to bluster-and-spit your way
past the facts and details that tell me what a pretentious
fraud you are. Small wonder you're a Trumpanzee and former
Tea Party poltroon, so gullible you are..


Say, did you ever figure out why you were wrong about
'centrifugal force' and 'magnetic capacitors', Dummy?
--
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:04:01 -0400
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"<SNORT> well, actually, spin produces centrifugal force, which is
a force directed away from the center of rotation, Dummy.
That centrifugal force is in opposition to any gravitational
force of an object."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
..
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500 news: <***@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."

"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:25:36 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
<LOL> and I laugh at that bit of nonsense

He does the taxes of the folks I work with, too..

I doubt that your street corner begging

It's funny watching you try to bluster-and-spit your way
past the facts and details that tell me what a pretentious
fraud you are. Small wonder you're a Trumpanzee and former
Tea Party poltroon, so gullible you are..
Say, did you ever figure out why you were wrong about
'centrifugal force' and 'magnetic capacitors', Dummy?

This is from Kurt 'Licknuts' Lochner who incorrectly claimed that
adjusted gross income was gross income minus deductions and
exemptions... Perhaps Licknuts always had his mommy do his taxes...

[Man of Mind]

Post by Steve
This is from Kurt 'Licknuts'

I'll take that as a "no"..
--
Canyon <***@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
..
Steve <***@yahooooooo.com>
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500 news: <***@4ax.com>

"I don't need to prove anything.."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"

"MY self image is very secure...."
..
Canyon <***@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:08:28 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"[..] my ego isn't even slightly effected by what others
might think of me."
..
Canyon <***@nospam.yahoo.com>
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"I don't need to back anything up, you moron, cause unlike
yourself, my self image is not dependent on what others
think about me."

[Ted&Alice]

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:25:36 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
<LOL> and I laugh at that bit of nonsense

He does the taxes of the folks I work with, too..

I doubt that your street corner begging

It's funny watching you try to bluster-and-spit your way
past the facts and details that tell me what a pretentious
fraud you are. Small wonder you're a Trumpanzee and former
Tea Party poltroon, so gullible you are..
Say, did you ever figure out why you were wrong about
'centrifugal force' and 'magnetic capacitors', Dummy?

This is from Kurt 'Licknuts' Lochner who incorrectly claimed that
adjusted gross income was gross income minus deductions and
exemptions... Perhaps Licknuts always had his mommy do his taxes...

Nah, Kurt's too important for that. He has a tax accountant.

[Steve]

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:25:36 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
<LOL> and I laugh at that bit of nonsense

He does the taxes of the folks I work with, too..

I doubt that your street corner begging

It's funny watching you try to bluster-and-spit your way
past the facts and details that tell me what a pretentious
fraud you are. Small wonder you're a Trumpanzee and former
Tea Party poltroon, so gullible you are..
Say, did you ever figure out why you were wrong about
'centrifugal force' and 'magnetic capacitors', Dummy?

This is from Kurt 'Licknuts' Lochner who incorrectly claimed that
adjusted gross income was gross income minus deductions and
exemptions... Perhaps Licknuts always had his mommy do his taxes...

Nah, Kurt's too important for that. He has a tax accountant.

..and besides, Kurt isn't all that good with mathematics.


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Ted&Alice]

Post by Steve

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by Steve
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 08:25:36 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
<LOL> and I laugh at that bit of nonsense

He does the taxes of the folks I work with, too..

I doubt that your street corner begging

It's funny watching you try to bluster-and-spit your way
past the facts and details that tell me what a pretentious
fraud you are. Small wonder you're a Trumpanzee and former
Tea Party poltroon, so gullible you are..
Say, did you ever figure out why you were wrong about
'centrifugal force' and 'magnetic capacitors', Dummy?

This is from Kurt 'Licknuts' Lochner who incorrectly claimed that
adjusted gross income was gross income minus deductions and
exemptions... Perhaps Licknuts always had his mommy do his taxes...

Nah, Kurt's too important for that. He has a tax accountant.

..and besides, Kurt isn't all that good with mathematics.

Because Kurt isn't all that bright.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Man of Mind
It's funny watching you try to bluster-and-spit your way
past the facts and details that tell me what a pretentious
fraud you are. Small wonder you're a Trumpanzee and former
Tea Party poltroon, so gullible you are..
Say, did you ever figure out why you were wrong about
'centrifugal force' and 'magnetic capacitors', Dummy?

*>cricket.wav<*
--
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:04:01 -0400
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"<SNORT> well, actually, spin produces centrifugal force, which is
a force directed away from the center of rotation, Dummy.
That centrifugal force is in opposition to any gravitational
force of an object."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
..
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500 news: <***@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."

"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:18:59 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind
It's funny watching you try to bluster-and-spit your way
past the facts and details that tell me what a pretentious
fraud you are. Small wonder you're a Trumpanzee and former
Tea Party poltroon, so gullible you are..
Say, did you ever figure out why you were wrong about
'centrifugal force' and 'magnetic capacitors', Dummy?

*>cricket.wav<*

This is from Kurt 'Licknuts' Lochner who incorrectly claimed that
adjusted gross income was gross income minus deductions and
exemptions... Perhaps Licknuts always had his mommy do his taxes...

[Man of Mind]

Post by Steve
This is from Kurt 'Licknuts'

*>LOL!<* Desperate much, Crayon?..
--
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:04:01 -0400
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"<SNORT> well, actually, spin produces centrifugal force, which is
a force directed away from the center of rotation, Dummy.
That centrifugal force is in opposition to any gravitational
force of an object."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
..
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500 news: <***@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."

"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"

[Steve]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:48:38 -0500, Man of Mind

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Steve
This is from Kurt 'Licknuts'

*>LOL!<* Desperate much, Crayon?..

Why would anybody other than you welfare queens be desperate, Licknob?


--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Steve
Why would anybody other than you welfare queens be desperate

*>LOL!<* So, you're still desperately trying to demonize your opponent
because you're too stupid to carry on an intelligent discussion?


That's common to you and your fellow anti-intellectual
right-wing cowards, in case you needed reminding again..


Examples follow..
--
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:04:01 -0400
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

"<SNORT> well, actually, spin produces centrifugal force, which is
a force directed away from the center of rotation, Dummy.
That centrifugal force is in opposition to any gravitational
force of an object."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
..
Steve <***@yahooooo.com>
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:37:58 -0500 news: <***@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that
exists in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."
..
Steven Canyon <***@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT news:<***@4ax.com>

"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."

"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"

[David Hartung]

Post by Man of Mind

Post by David Hartung
Kurt is very proud of his degree, and I suppose that is proper,

Again, you casting aspersions, in an effort to downplay a
formal education that you do not possess. Your ignorance
is not equivalent to that, nor is your pseudo-reasoning.

Post by David Hartung
he also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree
his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

No, quite the opposite..

Your postings indicate otherwise.

[Man of Mind]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Man of Mind

Post by David Hartung
he also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree
his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

No, quite the opposite..

Your postings indicate otherwise.

Your inadequate comprehension of the subjects that you undertake
indicate otherwise, on your own behalf, when you cast aspersions
to suit your simple minded beliefs..


As I said earlier, which you're still trying to avoid..


You are casting aspersions, in an effort to downplay a
formal education that you do not possess. Your ignorance
is not equivalent to that, nor is your pseudo-reasoning.

[Ted&Alice]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Man of Mind

Post by David Hartung
Kurt is very proud of his degree, and I suppose that is proper,

Again, you casting aspersions, in an effort to downplay a
formal education that you do not possess. Your ignorance
is not equivalent to that, nor is your pseudo-reasoning.

Post by David Hartung
he also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree
his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

No, quite the opposite..

Your postings indicate otherwise.

He has a desperately urgent need to prove his own adequacy to himself. What
we witness here are some of the techniques he's constructed in order to
accomplish that. In his mind, you and I are ignorant unthinking rightards
over whom he daily demonstrates his intellectual superiority.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Ted&Alice
He has a desperately urgent need to prove his own adequacy

*>LOL!<* Nah, that would again only yourself..

Post by Ted&Alice
you and I are ignorant unthinking rightards

Well, that's what it looks like from here, in case you'd forgotten..


F'rinstance..
--
How can we insinuate against about your academic credentials?"

"Centrifugal force is responsible for all conservation laws."

"Now, would you like me to correct your psychics mistakes?"

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

"We'll assume a unit mass of unity."

Ted&Alice <***@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:59:38 GMT
Message-ID:
<1611476456497115897.677768sam.m.tedesco-***@news.easynews.com>


"If you wanna break it down to which of the four fundamental
forces is most instrumental in causing the centripetal
acceleration of a ball on a string, then it's coulombic."

[Ted&Alice]

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Ted&Alice
He has a desperately urgent need to prove his own adequacy

*>LOL!<* Nah, that would again only yourself..

Hmm. ... Should I flame your typo? ... Nah, I ain't retarded enough to do
something like that, which would prove* only that I'm a loser**.

**Tom spells it "looser"

*and only Tom's spell checker prevents him from spelling it "proove"

[Man of Mind]

Post by Ted&Alice
Hmm. ... Should I flame your typo? ... Nah, I ain't retarded enough

Yes, you are..

[Ted&Alice]

Post by Man of Mind

Post by Ted&Alice
Hmm. ... Should I flame your typo? ... Nah, I ain't retarded enough

Yes, you are..

You're claiming I'm retarded enough to do exactly what you do, Kurt. OMG
you're dumb!!

[Man of Mind]

Post by Ted&Alice
You're claiming I'm retarded

You said it, not me..

[David Hartung]

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by David Hartung

Post by Man of Mind

Post by David Hartung
Kurt is very proud of his degree, and I suppose that is proper,

Again, you casting aspersions, in an effort to downplay a
formal education that you do not possess. Your ignorance
is not equivalent to that, nor is your pseudo-reasoning.

Post by David Hartung
he also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree
his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

No, quite the opposite..

Your postings indicate otherwise.

He has a desperately urgent need to prove his own adequacy to himself. What
we witness here are some of the techniques he's constructed in order to
accomplish that. In his mind, you and I are ignorant unthinking rightards
over whom he daily demonstrates his intellectual superiority.

In his mind. :)

[Ted&Alice]

Post by David Hartung

Post by Ted&Alice

Post by David Hartung

Post by Man of Mind

Post by David Hartung
Kurt is very proud of his degree, and I suppose that is proper,

Again, you casting aspersions, in an effort to downplay a
formal education that you do not possess. Your ignorance
is not equivalent to that, nor is your pseudo-reasoning.

Post by David Hartung
he also seems to think that because he has a bachelor of science degree
his opinions in other fields should carry additional weight.

No, quite the opposite..

Your postings indicate otherwise.

He has a desperately urgent need to prove his own adequacy to himself. What
we witness here are some of the techniques he's constructed in order to
accomplish that. In his mind, you and I are ignorant unthinking rightards
over whom he daily demonstrates his intellectual superiority.

In his mind. :)

Yes, he's completely disconnected from reality. Otherwise he'd have at
least an inkling of how badly he almost always makes a fool of himself.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Ted&Alice
Yes, he's completely disconnected from reality

Yet, I let you continue to make a fool of yourself..

[Man of Mind]

Still with your 'frightie-rightie' trolling, 'Tard?

<hateful nonsense, as usual>

*>LOL!<*


Examples follow..
--
"Reading Kurt's posts it strikes me how he is totally devoid of
any trace of intregity - and just how precious and rare that
attribute really is."

"You have no obligation, but would surely take the opportunity
considfering it's at the heart of your claim that there exists
a force other than electromagnetism that explains the build up
of charge between the plates of a capacitor. And yeah, the
charge builds up between the plates, niwit."

"I see how you copied equation off the internet, which is OK,
of course. What I don't see if you using them to calculate
your 17,000 ft/sec value."

"True, but you know knowledge of hyperbolic geometry and
elliptic geometry is necessary to understand the Einstein
universe, so ti does have some practical purpose."

"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

"Centrifugal force is responsible for all conservation laws."

Ted&Alice <***@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:59:38 GMT
Message-ID:
<1611476456497115897.677768sam.m.tedesco-***@news.easynews.com>

"If you wanna break it down to which of the four fundamental
forces is most instrumental in causing the centripetal
acceleration of a ball on a string, then it's coulombic."

[Steve]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Wexford

So Dredd [sic] Scott and Plessy were constitutional?

You just *never* LEARN, Pastor David Hartung.
Dred Scott *was* constitutional when the Supreme Court made that ruling in 1857 -- under our American Constitution as it *WAS* at that time.
The United States had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments in order for Dred Scott to become *unconstitutional*, Hartung. CLUE!
The same Constitutional Amendment-- the 14th Amendment, Hartung -- is also the amendment that *prevents* public businesses owners from *discriminating* against their customers based on such characteristics as race, religion, or sexual orientation.
You have the *rejection* of the Dred Scott decision by the American people thought their governments to thank for that!
One thing you never, ever, NEVER realize, David Hartung -- give your serious lack of self-objective understanding -- is that it is blatantly obvious given your political *beliefs* as an extreme-far-right-wing, bigoted, religious fundamentalist, Southern, white man that in 1857 YOU WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.

I'm not sure the 14th Amendment was as complete a solution to the issue as you claim, although without it we'd still have states making laws that openly void the Bill of Rights.
The Dread Scott decision should have been shunned by Southerners but it wasn't because it gave the slave owners an avenue to seize runaway slaves in free states. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which preceded it was thus also upheld. The hypocrisy and inconsistency of Southern legal mentality is really underscored here. Southerners (like Calhoun and Jefferson) who argued, sometimes quite eloquently and persuasively, for States Rights, believed only in states rights for themselves. When it came to the right of the free states to define who was human and what could be called "property," suddenly those rights were to be abrogated and thrust aside for the greater good of the slave owner. What an absurd situation! Anyone who thinks politics today is nuts need only read a little history.

Sometimes I think that there may not be a leftist in the country that
has even the slightest understanding of the 14th Amendment, and
perhaps they are as ignorant about the rest of the Constitution. The
fact is that there are, in the Constitution, only two occurrences of
language that offer any direct restrictions of what a private,
non-government entity may do. They would be the 13th Amendment, and
the now defunct, 18th Amendment.



--
Lord, please help me to be even more politically incorrect.

[Man of Mind]

Post by Steve
Sometimes I think

But, much of the time, you don't..