Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "The Absurdity Of White Supremacists" video.

  1. Mister mood The same way why radical liberals exist. There are stupid people all over the country that belong in various groups. People naturally want power and thus use different tactics to get it.
    1
  2. TheKeyser94 There are radical liberals. I can use the example of that cake shop that didn't want their cake as part of a gay wedding. That person was exercising their religious and property rights. Radical liberals cried foul and used the threat of incarceration to change their ways. Radical liberals are about as close to fascists as one can get. They use government to violate other people's rights and claim the ends justify the means. Using threat of violence and dismantling rights is not a good solution, but radical liberals do it.
    1
  3. TheKeyser94 Freedom of speech is freedom of intolerance. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church. I hate what they do, protesting funerals, but as long as they are peaceful they have every right to do that. I rather has that than a government that tells people what they can and cannot do. "or someone is so racist and intolerant as the Neo-Confederated show in this video." You yourself is a radical liberals. You say "intolerance is a no-no" but you are the ones that are not tolerate of these individuals' views. You may not agree with it but you don't have the right to use government to silence people. If you want to live in a country where the government determines what you should tolerate I suggest you live in N. Korea.
    1
  4. TheKeyser94 " intolerance is a no-no" I agree, but the government shouldn't be the one enforcing it. Also, I bet there are several ways that you are intolerant as well. Here is a great example, you disagree with a business's view no gay marriage and want to force them to bake a cake. Damn you are intolerant. Why do you want to use the government to bully people? That is why we have radical liberals, they do just that.
    1
  5. David Smith It doesn't matter if their views are intolerant. We don't use threat of incarceration to silence people with whom you have a different opinion than that of you. If you allow that then when they get in power they will turn around and oppress you.
    1
  6. SciFi2285 You don't have a right to someone's property. The constitution protects people's property. The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional in several ways. It is involuntary servitude, it is unjust deprivation of their property rights. The SC has been wrong before. "Dusting off a 50 year old playbook to use against another (constitutionally protected) minority is unlikely to be any more effective now than it was in 1964." What do you mean "constitutionally protected"? Please explain and cite the constitution.
    1
  7. SciFi2285 A Sodomy law is different in that via the 14th amendment governments can't discriminate. I completely 100% support that and that is a constitutional ruling. Laws can't discriminate, but individuals can. Parts of the Civil Rights Act prevent individual business owners from discriminating which is unconstitutional. That is my point. Other parts of the act were unnecessary in that all the fed. had to do was enforce the 14th amendment.
    1
  8. SciFi2285 Businesses are personal property. A person pays for it, runs it off their own income, it is their personal property. You lack understanding of the 5th amendment. So if you buy a wedding ring for your wife at $1000, and I decide to pay you $1500 for it buy you refuse because to you it is priceless, you just broke the law according to you. I have a championship ring I paid $300 for. That ring is priceless to me. You can offer me $500 for it and I will refuse, but according to you I just broke the law. What is "just compensation"? We can go farther. Gas is $3.59/gal. here at home. Where my parents live is $2.90/gal. So I go to my gas station and only offer to pay $2.90/gal would that work? Is that just compensation? Why doesn't the government enforce the commerce clause and force all states to sell gas at the same price? "The Constitution grants the government the authority to regulate commerce and public accommodations." Yes, between states. You are missing that part. "Because you cannot possibly partake in enjoying your other constitutional rights if you are constantly prevented from eating, sleeping, or filling up your gas tank. " You don't have a right to other people's property. You have the right to pursue happiness but you are not guaranteed it. Now how far are you willing top go with taking away rights to enforce what you feel is "right"? Are you willing to let the government randomly search your home to make sure you are not breaking any laws? Such action would have stopped several serial killers in the past. And if you are not breaking any laws why should you worry?
    1
  9. SciFi2285 "Does the government want to take my wedding or championship ring to serve a legitimate state interest? " What is a "legitimate state interest"? We have that situation of the bakery and the gay couple. The state has no interest if the couple has a cake at their wedding or not? You say there has to be a rational basis for seizure, who determines that? Why does that gay couple need a cake at their wedding? What if I wanted your wedding ring? It is the exact same thing. Your argument falls apart easily, now you are just arbitrarily picking and choosing what the government can and cannot for people to sell. What if i wanted to rent out your yard for a wedding or a graduation ceremony? No different then if I were to rent out a dancing hall. The courts only found "just compensation" is fair market value between government and private individuals, not private individuals and private individuals. "Commerce law is practical first and foremost. " And you lack understanding of what commerce law means in the constitution. It is commerce between states. "When it comes to discriminating against consumers, discriminating against job seekers, and similar practices, however, they almost always lose because the government has broad discretion to enforce equal opportunity." So when a business charges a high price for a product I need, that is not illegal? Why don't we have price control? You are not being consistent hear. " But preserving a level playing field and fairness is a fundamental part of the government's power to regulate commerce." Actually no, that isn't he government's job. That means the government has to oppress someone. You are saying it is ok to remove other people's rights in order to give more rights to others. How far are you willing to go with that? How many rights are you willing to remove for "equality"? We have had serial killers get away with many murders where they kept their victims bodies in their homes. Allowing the government to randomly search homes would have caught them sooner. Why don't you allow that? That evens the playing field by taking murderers off the street. Your ideas are broad and last consistency.
    1
  10. SciFi2285 I have read them, several are unconstitutional rulings. But that wouldn't be the first time, look at the ruling of Kelo vs. New City of London. It comes down to how many rights are you willing to remove for "equality" and "protection"? It seems like you are willing to give up a lot.
    1