• jmdrake's Avatar
    0 replies | 60 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:37 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Potato Head in U.S. Political News
    Wasn't there already a Mrs. Potato head? And isn't the whole point that you can give it your own makeover? I'm glad I'm no longer able to have kids.
    28 replies | 503 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:08 PM
    LOL. This is rich! Will Farcebook fakecheck Gov Cuomo?
    3 replies | 86 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:03 PM
    LOL. You're welcome and touche'! Here is my final response. I thought I laid out enough concerning stuff about the new law as it stands without going down the "A gay person can make you have sex with him" rabbit hole. It does concern me that religious affiliated institutions will have to deal with this. I've already seen it happen. When I first went to Vanderbilt there was a Christian Legal Society. I never joined but I had respect for them. They would offer to pray for you when exams were coming up, would have weekly worship services etc. My second year three women started the LGBT legal association. (Q hadn't yet arrived). I was cool with them too but didn't join them either for obvious reasons. ONE YEAR later I read in the paper that the Christian Legal Society lost its funding. Why? The fact that their bylaws required officers to have a personal faith in Jesus and lead worship services was considered "intolerant." (See: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/vanderbilts-religious-and-political-student-organizations-under-attack) Maybe that was just a coincidence. I dunno. But it seems the more "inclusive" our society becomes, the Christian views are being sidelined. I mean seriously there are so many flavors of Christianity, including Christian churches with gay pastors, that it's crazy that requirement that an officer be a believer is deemed "intolerant." Can I be over the chess club if I hate chess and never learned how to play it? And then there's the question of parents and children. We already have the James Younger case to deal with. How will this new law affect that? What about parents of "Q" children who take them to a conservative church where they hear fire and brimstone about the life they are considering? Yes the CRA doesn't directly affect that, but the Bob Jones University Case shows me how the law can be applied in ways it was never intended to be applied. So...just because I don't share one particular concern with you doesn't mean I don't have concerns.
    51 replies | 753 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:45 PM
    My brain hurts reading this. As I was explaining to Anti Federalist, any interpretation of an amended Civil Rights Act is to look at how the current CRA is interpreted. It's not a thing of "Well I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I perceive you as being white even though you told me you were black." it's "I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I fired you for being repetitively tardy and that has nothing to do with you being black." Certainly if an employee is in the closet and there's no evidence that he informed his boss that he was gay, then that would be a pretty solid defense against a CRA claim. But the has EVERYTHING to do with the REASON the employee was fired and not some twisted interpretation of what the language you are referencing. If I have a legitimate reason for firing you and I never give any indication that I fired you for anything other than that reason and I fire other people that don't fit your protected class for the same reason then I have a rock solid CRA defense. If, on the other hand, I only fire gay people, or black people, or women, or some other protected class for that same reason, then I have a problem. Look at the other language in the definitions section of the act. 14) LGBTQ people often face discrimination when seeking to rent or purchase housing, as well as in every other aspect of obtaining and maintaining housing. LGBTQ people in same-sex relationships are often discriminated against when two names associated with one gender appear on a housing application, and transgender people often encounter discrimination when credit checks or inquiries reveal a former name. ^That is what the "perceived" language is talking about. Two people could be best friends, or it could be a man and a woman with the feminine or masculine names. Think "The Boy Named Sue" song by Johnny Cash. (In college I knew a young man named Wanda that was dating a young lady named Wanda). Someone seeing such an application might perceive this was a gay couple when it wasn't.
    51 replies | 753 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:48 PM
    The point you and Madison320 keep missing is that individuals should not gain rights by virtue of being a part of a corporation that they do not have as individuals. But, by the definition of being a corporation, they do.
    36 replies | 627 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:34 PM
    Anti Federalist, this is how you push back. Rand is the boss. Rand Paul 2024. Everyone else is a waste of time.
    30 replies | 701 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:32 PM
    What? No. It's not saying you have to accept somebody's gayness. I mean...I have no idea why somebody would not accept somebody's gayness. Well...yeah I can. I have had to explain to more than one friend/family member that he or she was not gay. Why? Because he or she told me over and over again about this person or that person of the opposite sex that he or she was attracted to. I had to explain to that person that, by definition, if you like people of both sexes you aren't gay, you're bi. Everyone that I explained that too ultimately thanked me for helping them see that. Apparently, especially in the lesbian community, there is a stigma about being bi (I don't get that) so some bi people are in denial about that. Okay, back to what the language actually means. You can't discriminate against someone under this bill for liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for liking the opposite sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the opposite sex. So, under this law, a gay bar could not discriminate against a heterosexual bartender. And that shouldn't be a shocker. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents a black owned bar from discriminating against white bartenders on the basis of race.
    51 replies | 753 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:22 PM
    Okay. I'm going to try to explain this one more time but I'll be brief with my brief. I) The "lack thereof" portion of the text protects the person with the lack thereof! It means the opposite of what you're thinking it means. Again, here is the whole sentence. Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender. So this means that in the context of the 1964 civil rights act, discrimination under that act is barred if it is: A) based on a person's actual or perceived romantic, emotion, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons based on gender or B) lack of sexual attraction on the basis of gender.
    51 replies | 753 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:32 AM
    Egads! Thanks for the correction. Yeah I did a legal analysis on the wrong bill. Similar though. Okay. You know how they say "Don't pay attention to the guy behind the curtain?" Well...the definitions section of the bill is not the most important part. Sadly that's the part people look at. There are some people mad at Rand Paul for not supporting the "anti-lynching" bill, when all it did was to change the language of the hate crimes bill and say "We're going to call this lynching." Ironically there is language in the "anti lynching bill" that says if you assault a shop owner in a time of civil unrest you are guilty of a hate crime/lynching. So....technically some of the BLM/antifa protesters are guilty of lynching. But I digress. Back to your original question. Again this is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As such, everything I wrote previously still stands. So think of that in this context. The striking down of anti-miscegenation laws is analogous to the striking down of bans on gay marriage. An apartment complex that didn't allow interracial couples to rent from them would have fallen under the Fair Housing Act. Now an apartment complex that doesn't allow gay couples falls under the Fair Housing Act. Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status for banning interracial dating. Oakwood University may very well lose its tax exempt status for not allowing same sex dating. But nobody can sue someone for turning down sexual advances from Halle Berry or Naomi Campbell or Vanessa Williams or Beyonce' just because he doesn't like black women. By analogy nobody can sue someone for not being interested in dating someone of the same sex just because he's not into gays. Look at the text of what you keep quoting. Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.
    51 replies | 753 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    16 replies | 330 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:23 AM
    And what exactly is that "real message?" Iraq WANTS cooperation with Iran. So does the legitimate Syrian government. Neither the government of Iraq, which WE installed, nor the government in Syria, which we helped create a terrorist organization to topple, want us there. So....why are we there? How could anything but a total pullout of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan be a "good move?" What's next? We start bombing Vietnam again?
    42 replies | 686 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:19 AM
    The ghost of John McCain.
    42 replies | 686 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:14 AM
    If you want to know what the bill really does you have to read the bill. Here it is: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text It's basically an amendment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It kind of seems redundant because the U.S. Supreme Court, even with its supposed 5-4 conservative majority, recently "amended" the 1964 Civil Rights Act in exactly the same way. So....this bill essentially changes nothing. It just puts the congressional rubber stamp on the SCOTUS action. Now the 1964 CRA has been around a long time. (Longer than I have been alive and according to my kids that's pretty old). Something I discovered in 1990, decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that there were still country clubs that barred black members. Shoal Creek country club was hosting the PGA in 1990 when this occurred. I then learned that the 1964 CRA does not cover all businesses. It just covers those considered "public accommodations." With that in mind, not only do you not have to be sexually or romantically attracted to LGBTQ, but if you REALLY want to you can, under the 1964 CRA, create your own all heterosexual, non-trans country club. So what happened to Shoal Creek? Well a few things. A national boycott of the sponsors of the PGA was organized. Also Shoal Creek is one county over from Birmingham Alabama which, who's police department had been contracted to provide security. Birmingham has a majority black population and at the time had its first black mayor. (And all subsequent mayors have been black). So there was pressure on the mayor to get out of the security contract. Ultimately the issue was resolved because Shoal Creek reversed its policy and got a token black person to join. (I bet he got a free membership). The PGA then changed its rules to explicitly require venues not discriminate on the basis of race. So this hypothetical non-LGBTQIA country club could legally exist, but it could face a social backlash in today's climate....which it would anyway regardless of this new bill. So what does change? Well...many years later in law school I read the Bob Jones University vs IRS case. BJU admitted blacks, but they had this asinine policy against interracial dating. Apparently they never read in the Bible where Miriam was struck with leporasy for complaining about Moses having a black wife. Anyhow the IRS stripped BJU of their tax exempt status over this. The SCOTUS sided with the IRS reasoning that the charity status was for promoting public policy, and all three branches of government had show support for the policy of desegregation. The POTUS had desegregated the military. The SCOTUS had struct down "separate but equal" in Brown v Board of Education. And Congress had passed the 1964 CRA. Reading that case sent chills down my spine. Up to that point I had supported LGBTQ rights. I still kind of do. I don't care who sleeps with who. And while I am certain BJU had no biblical grounds for its position against interracial dating, the SCOTUS ruling was not based on biblical grounds. I don't what places like Oakwood University, where I went for a couple of years in undergrad, to have to throw away their religious beliefs just to be able to participate in the Pell Grant program or to lose access to donors who want tax breaks. (Oakwood is so conservative that it kicked Brian McKnight out for getting his then girlfriend pregnant. He did marry her though and went on be nominated for 17 Grammy awards.) The silver lining to all of this is that the SCOTUS recently ruled that the "ecclessiastical exception" allows religious schools to fire teachers for any reason and that they are exempt in that regard from the 1964 CRA. Back to the whole "dating discrimination" thing. Researching Section 230, which many people here oppose, I ran across an interesting case. A "find a roomate" website was sued under the Fair Housing Act because it had "race" as a criteria one could select in...
    51 replies | 753 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 10:26 PM
    That's a GOOD question! I am thinking you are talking about people you have relationships with right? Here's my thoughts. Make sure you keep the relationship front and center. Don't try to cross every bridge at the same time. Find common ground in areas where you disagree. That last part is SUPER important! It's easy to find common ground where you agree. Much tougher on the other side. Be patient. Be willing to table conversations and come back to them. Understand that "winning" means any incremental change in position no matter how small. And don't take anything personally. You have to be the adult.
    34 replies | 1591 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:51 PM
    The man's on top. That's misogenist. And he's to the right. That shows that hetorosexualism is right wing.
    34 replies | 1591 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 06:46 PM
    Wait a minute. There's a trans-flag? I thought they were part of the LGBTQIA flag? This is so confusing. Did the trans-nation secede from the LGBTQIA nation?
    36 replies | 765 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 06:02 PM
    Good for Mike Rowe, but he's being kind here. Fauci flat out lied. When he was asked about his mask flip/flop he said that the reason they said don't wear masks was to save them for the first responders. But the initial story he said was that it was because "Masks are ineffective." He lied. He's still lying. I trust science. I don't blindly trust scientists. It's like I trust God but I don't trust everyone who claims to be a man (or woman) of God.
    2 replies | 224 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 05:51 PM
    At 2:04 "The specific question was about minors. Let's be a little more specific since you evaded the question." WOW! And yes. Rand is 100% right on this. And it's not just about "against the parents consent." What happens when you have one parent that consents, or worse is PUSHING the child to do this, and another who objects? Rand Paul 2024!
    30 replies | 701 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 05:33 PM
    There were contracts before there were states. They were called "covenants." You can read about them in the Bible. For example the covenant between Abraham and Lot dividing up pasture land. How were covenants enforced? Mostly by honor. If you were known to be a covenant breaker then other people wouldn't want to do business with you. Loss of reputation, or "loss of face", was how things were generally enforced. Yeah...you could get a bunch of people with swords to enforce your covenant. But even if you didn't have the manpower to do that, simply letting everyone know "You can't trust Mr. X" was a powerful weapon. Now, back to corporations. Why do you believe it is necessary to have a legal entity that you need to have a government license to form called a "corporation?" Are you REALLY a minarchist? Here is a definition I found. https://www.lexico.com/definition/minarchy Minimal government; specifically a (hypothetical) form of government that does not interfere with individual rights and civil liberties, and that has itself no right to levy taxes upon legitimately acquired property. A government created license to limit liability, the very definition of a corporation, interferes with the individual right to have full redress for damages done to him by another individual or individuals who put their assets in that government licensed entity but maintain control over them for their own financial gain. So...how is that compatible with minarchy?
    36 replies | 627 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 05:22 PM
    You mean like Gab or Parler swooping in to take on Twitter? Yeah. Then Gab got kicked off the Apple and Google stores. Then big tech went even further and kicked Parler off of Apple, Google and their hosting platform at Amazon. Sure, they can get another hosting platform. (In fact as of this post they seem to be back up). Still, without a presence in the app stores they are at a significant disadvantage. Of course there are ways around that. Mastodon is a protocol, as opposed to a platform, and it's impossible to ban a protocol. But Mastodon hasn't caught on yet. Meanwhile...as the now infamous Time magazine admitted, this "cabal" (Time's words, not mine) of big tech, big labor, Wallstreet, and "wokestreet" conspired together to control the narrative after (and really before) this last election. I am not sure if anything admitted in that article is per se illegal. But it sure feels wrong.
    36 replies | 627 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 04:28 PM
    Corporations have MORE rights than individuals. That's the problem. Would agree with what? In the above video Dr. Paul was disagreeing with the fact that corporations get a tax break for healthcare spending on adults that individuals in general do not. Do you agree with Dr. Paul? And do you agree that corporations should get liability protection that people who come together and create a partnership by contract do not? Are you a statist? I'm not asking that question as a perjorative. I'm just curious. Do you believe that the state, itself, is necessary? Because without a state, all state created entities, including corporations, could not exist. As long as we have government protection for corporations, and by definition their very existence is a government protection, there should be some government protection FROM corporations as well. Antitrust laws fall into that category. If the state went away there would be no corporations and no antitrust laws either.
    36 replies | 627 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 04:23 PM
    That is, in fact, a partnership. To be a corporation you have to have a GOVERNMENT charter. Period. End of story. And yes, that's true even for non-profit corporations. You can be a church, for example, and never apply for a 501 c(3). You are tax exempt simply by being a church. But you can't apply for those gubmit grants unless you fill out the paperwork, jump through the hoops and become a corporation. Back to your example. None of the contracts these hypothetical individuals draw up can REALLY limit their liability the way a corporation can. The issue with liability isn't just with the people you contract with. It's with people you DON'T contract with! With contracts you can create something called a "limited partnership." But even with a limited partnership, at least one partner always has FULL liability. Let's say persons A, B, C and D form a limited partnership. By contract they can say "Persons B, C and D don't have liability if the partnership gets sued." But person A still has the FULL liability. I learned about all of this when I was a teenager. My aunt and I went to one of those "Start your own business" con-job "we'll sell you a business for $19.95 a month" seminars. The business we decided to buy was one where they would daily fax you a list of distressed and returned merchandise that you could sell. (Yes this was pre-internet). I started reading about corporate structures. I thought a corporation was too complicated and didn't like the idea of double taxation so I looked into limited partnerships. What I was really looking for was an LLC, but those didn't exist at the time. (We ultimately quit the business because. Yeah you would get faxes of stuff you could sell....but without a store to sell the stuff...and pre the internet where you could put up an e-commerce store...it just didn't make sense.) Now, consider the LLC part of the equation. Once again that is something that you have to apply to a GOVERNMENT to start. It just can't be done by "contract." With an LLC or an S-Corp or any other corporate structure, if the driver for your company crashes into a Rolls Royce some full partner in your partnership is personally liable. So when the partnership runs out of assets, the unlimited partners assets become attachable. Yes you can have insurance, but insurance has limits. Sure the unlimited partner can declare bankruptcy, but that affects his PERSONAL credit. By contrast, if the LLC goes bankrupt, everybody in the LLC can walk away clean thanks to the GOVERNMENT CREATED benefit that simply cannot be created through contract. Even if you contract with ALL of your customers and EVERY institution that loans you money and say "You can't come after my personal assets", that doesn't protect you from liability from third parties that don't contract with you. What is the ultimate benefit of this GOVERNMENT protection? Well...corporations can take risks that individuals, or even groups of individuals (partnerships) would never dare take. And that's WHY they can grow so big. Further they can be owned by investors all around the world who don't give a rip what they do in the countries where they operate. Some GOVERNMENTS are the biggest shareholders in the world. But thank you for asking the question. I think that helps to clear up the confusion.
    36 replies | 627 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 02:36 PM
    That's probably why they come up with such bills, they are frustrated with themselves.
    3 replies | 112 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    0 replies | 70 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 11:13 AM
    Ron Paul is also against you on this.
    36 replies | 627 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 11:10 AM
    Nope. Corporations are NOT inevitable. They would NOT exist without government. They are no more inevitable than drug laws. Marriage? Marriage was a religious institution long before we had the governments we have today. Terrible analogy. The libertarian position on marriage is to get government out of marriage. How do you get government out of a government created institution like a corporation? Rhetorical question. You can't. People coming together to pool their resources are called partnerships. Partnerships existed prior to governments. Corporations are not persons. Oh, and Ron Paul agrees with me on this. See starting at 4:30
    36 replies | 627 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 10:10 AM
    A person is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. So is it proper for law enforcement to search the home of an innocent person, without a warrant?
    17 replies | 275 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:25 AM
    I would bet you all the money that is supposedly in your bank account that MOST people do not understand how the banking system works or that more money has been lent out then there are deposits. But at any rate, contract law does NOT operate under the assumption that "well most people know this." And if it did that would be wrong. Right after the civil war many freed slaves put the money they earned in the "Freeman's bank" which collapsed 9 years later from risky and speculative investing. Ummm....that's what I said. I will repeat it. Maybe I should rephrase it. When putting your money in the bank, if the bank is engaged in fractional reserve banking, the bank should disclose that all of the deposits could disappear tomorrow if things went wrong. People put money in banks not to earn interest (the bank interest, if any, is pitiful), but for their money to be "safe" and available when needed. Now since most banks are FDIC insured that's not so much of an issue. Of course the FDIC is "federal" which creates the moral hazard, thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steigal, that banks which are just "safely holding people's money" try to act like investment bankers at the same time, taking risks knowing they'll get bailed out.
    36 replies | 627 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:07 AM
    If everybody understood when then "voluntarily" agreed to put their money in the bank that it wasn't really there...then yeah. But if that is not disclosed there is no real meeting of the minds or contract. And all of this is propped up by the government fiction of corporate personhood. People can come together and pool their capital for joint ventures. Those are called "partnerships." Corporations should not exist. There is nothing libertarian about them.
    36 replies | 627 view(s)
More Activity

3 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    thanks man!
  2. View Conversation
    Please help! I'm counting on RPF! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251175
  3. View Conversation
    Well she reads the blog.

    Also I'm trying to understand why she thinks Rand is pro-choice.

    Why not talk about it?
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 3 of 3
About John Taylor

Basic Information

Political Campaign Skills
Campaign Workers:
Fund Raiser

Signature


The evils of the protecting-duty, may undoubtedly be graduated by compromises, like those of every other species of tyranny, but the folly of letting in some tyranny has in all ages been fatal to liberty. A succession of wedges, though apparently small, finally splits the strongest timber. ~John Taylor of Caroline, Tyranny Unmasked

We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. ~Congressman Larry McDonald.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,909
Posts Per Day
0.97
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
3
Most Recent Message
07-04-2010 06:24 PM
General Information
Last Activity
03-05-2015 01:18 PM
Join Date
02-06-2010
Referrals
0

14 Friends

  1. Acala Acala is offline

    Member

    Acala
  2. BamaFanNKy BamaFanNKy is offline

    Member

    BamaFanNKy
  3. BlackTerrel BlackTerrel is offline

    Member

    BlackTerrel
  4. Brett Brett is offline

    Member

    Brett
  5. Deborah K Deborah K is offline

    Member

    Deborah K
  6. Dr.3D Dr.3D is online now

    Member

    Dr.3D
  7. FrankRep FrankRep is offline

    Member

    FrankRep
  8. jmdrake jmdrake is offline

    Member

    jmdrake
  9. Kregisen Kregisen is offline

    Member

    Kregisen
  10. pahs1994 pahs1994 is offline

    Member

    pahs1994
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 14
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...