[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Balanced? Nearly half of them have no respect for the Constitution, specifically the second amendment. That is not balance.
While I don’t accept your statement the way you’ve phrased it, you might notice you said “half”. Half swing left and half swing right.
Holy shit… to many, that’s almost balanced.
Again, the ones that are old and going to retire/die are the ones you don’t like. Lucky you![/quote]
Like I said your standards are different.
Half our citizens abandoning the rule of law as defined by our constitution is not balance. It’s anarchy.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Half our citizens abandoning the rule of law as defined by our constitution is not balance. It’s anarchy.
Well, I’m not certain you can blame that on any particular party.
This too has been pretty balanced as of late…[/quote]
You obviously have no idea how many times some of us have said this very thing. I am a constructionist conservative who believes in the defining principles of government as bequeathed to us by those who fought off the ball and chain of the English crown against all odds.
I have no party loyalty whatsoever. My loyalty is to those principles of very limited government, private property and self determination. The governments function is to prevent enemies of those principles from denying them to it’s citizens and not very much else. In a nutshell that is the prevailing overall thought of the framers of our founding documents and that is what makes this country what it is. Not happening to have born here.
Both parties have long abandoned that, but the Democrats are not even vaguely American anymore. Barack Obama preaches the very ideology (one of em) that was roundly denounced by our early thinkers as is readily manifest to any and all who care to glance at their writings. He is not an American in any sense other than accident of geographical birth and even that is in question.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Balanced? Nearly half of them have no respect for the Constitution, specifically the second amendment. That is not balance.
While I don’t accept your statement the way you’ve phrased it, you might notice you said “half”. Half swing left and half swing right.
Holy shit… to many, that’s almost balanced.
Again, the ones that are old and going to retire/die are the ones you don’t like. Lucky you!
Like I said your standards are different.
Half our citizens abandoning the rule of law as defined by our constitution is not balance. It’s anarchy.[/quote]
Here’s where I think Ron Paul’s statement at Google was interesting: we, as citizens, essentially have no contract with our government because the Constitution is being ignored. This leaves us open to the arbitrary decisions of “elected” officials. Francis Schaeffer predicted this sort of thing 30 years ago. Looks like it came true.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Both parties have long abandoned that, but the Democrats are not even vaguely American anymore. Barack Obama preaches the very ideology (one of em) that was roundly denounced by our early thinkers as is readily manifest to any and all who care to glance at their writings. He is not an American in any sense other than accident of geographical birth and even that is in question.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a proponent of this nor am I trying to defend anything, but things do change over time.
Admittedly, if anything major was going to be changed it should have been done via amendments to the constitution – via the constitution.
The real question is, how is the populace going to get their country back - within the confines of how things currently are? If nothing is going to be done then the changes will simply become permanent and it will be time to reset base assumptions concerning country and state.
In short, given time the status quo is the reality.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Balanced? Nearly half of them have no respect for the Constitution, specifically the second amendment. That is not balance.
While I don’t accept your statement the way you’ve phrased it, you might notice you said “half”. Half swing left and half swing right.
Holy shit… to many, that’s almost balanced.
Again, the ones that are old and going to retire/die are the ones you don’t like. Lucky you!
Like I said your standards are different.
Half our citizens abandoning the rule of law as defined by our constitution is not balance. It’s anarchy.
Here’s where I think Ron Paul’s statement at Google was interesting: we, as citizens, essentially have no contract with our government because the Constitution is being ignored. This leaves us open to the arbitrary decisions of “elected” officials. Francis Schaeffer predicted this sort of thing 30 years ago. Looks like it came true.
[/quote]
Francis Schaeffer: The God Who is There
I read that book what seems like a million years ago now. There was a clear thinker, unless of course a meaningful belief in God defines that out of possibility.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Both parties have long abandoned that, but the Democrats are not even vaguely American anymore. Barack Obama preaches the very ideology (one of em) that was roundly denounced by our early thinkers as is readily manifest to any and all who care to glance at their writings. He is not an American in any sense other than accident of geographical birth and even that is in question.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a proponent of this nor am I trying to defend anything, but things do change over time.
Admittedly, if anything major was going to be changed it should have been done via amendments to the constitution – via the constitution.
The real question is, how is the populace going to get their country back - within the confines of how things currently are? If nothing is going to be done then the changes will simply become permanent and it will be time to reset base assumptions concerning country and state.
In short, given time the status quo is the reality.[/quote]
I am not understanding you man. Here you are now asking valid questions based on the fact that even as a non citizen you recognize it’s ridiculous to deny that what we are seeing today cannot be construed as anything close to what those giants envisioned.
In that light how is not then glaringly obvious that whatever the answer might be to returning to this nation to it’s constitutional roots, a man who laments that constitution as being ill suited to his goals is not it.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Instead of any idea of just giving money to people, how about a whole paradigm shift? (I have mentioned this before.)
Completely restructure welfare so that people simply complete tasks in exchange for benefits. (i.e. work.) Clean offices, mow lawns, take care of parks, or most anything that could benefit society.
No qualifying. Anyone who wants the benefits simply needs to work for it. But you must do the work.
This immediately takes out anyone who wants to “work the system”, and live off of the government. And the ones who want to move up can. Get a good job, and cut how much you work for the government.
Different rules obviously for the disabled. But this leaves a safety net in place, helps those who need it, reduces fraud, and motivates people to move off the system, instead of punishing them for getting jobs. [/quote]
There is one small problem with this. The people that did this work before. Think about what the carpenter’s union would do if the gov’t decided they were going to train people to be carpenters and find work for them. If the gov’t can do this, the market can do it better. We don’t need gov’t to provide jobs.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Instead of any idea of just giving money to people, how about a whole paradigm shift? (I have mentioned this before.)
Completely restructure welfare so that people simply complete tasks in exchange for benefits. (i.e. work.) Clean offices, mow lawns, take care of parks, or most anything that could benefit society.
No qualifying. Anyone who wants the benefits simply needs to work for it. But you must do the work.
This immediately takes out anyone who wants to “work the system”, and live off of the government. And the ones who want to move up can. Get a good job, and cut how much you work for the government.
Different rules obviously for the disabled. But this leaves a safety net in place, helps those who need it, reduces fraud, and motivates people to move off the system, instead of punishing them for getting jobs.
There is one small problem with this. The people that did this work before. Think about what the carpenter’s union would do if the gov’t decided they were going to train people to be carpenters and find work for them. If the gov’t can do this, the market can do it better. We don’t need gov’t to provide jobs.[/quote]
The government needs to be out of all this shit… period.
[quote]PublickStews wrote:
Capitalism is a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. A progressive tax policy can’t begin to equalize it.[/quote]
Oh. My. God.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. I would rather be labeled an incoherent idiot than to think there is an actual living, breathing organism on this planet who actually subscribed to what you just wrote.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
Capitalism is a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. A progressive tax policy can’t begin to equalize it.
Oh. My. God.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. I would rather be labeled an incoherent idiot than to think there is an actual living, breathing organism on this planet who actually subscribed to what you just wrote. [/quote]
There is no recent shortage of people in this country who are unmoved in any way by anything beyond what some marxist college course has taught them. History means nothing.
There is one small problem with this. The people that did this work before. Think about what the carpenter’s union would do if the gov’t decided they were going to train people to be carpenters and find work for them. If the gov’t can do this, the market can do it better. We don’t need gov’t to provide jobs.[/quote]
I am not talking about those types of jobs. And if these jobs are available, then the people can be hired into them instead of this, or any system.
I am talking about unskilled shit anyone can do, or easily trained to do. Things that benefit society, but that they have a hard time finding people to do. Or things that need to be done, but nobody is doing them.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
Capitalism is a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. A progressive tax policy can’t begin to equalize it.
Oh. My. God.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. I would rather be labeled an incoherent idiot than to think there is an actual living, breathing organism on this planet who actually subscribed to what you just wrote.
There is no recent shortage of people in this country who are unmoved in any way by anything beyond what some marxist college course has taught them. History means nothing.[/quote]
Amazing, isn’t it?
What system but capitalism has EVER created and spread wealth?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
Capitalism is a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. A progressive tax policy can’t begin to equalize it.
Oh. My. God.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. I would rather be labeled an incoherent idiot than to think there is an actual living, breathing organism on this planet who actually subscribed to what you just wrote. [/quote]
What is hilarious is that he wrote that on the Internet, which probably means he has a roof above his head, indoor plumbing, electricity and artificial light…
…is it really an accomplishment that capitalism has made poor people so rich that they can afford that amount of ignorance?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
Capitalism is a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. A progressive tax policy can’t begin to equalize it.
Oh. My. God.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. I would rather be labeled an incoherent idiot than to think there is an actual living, breathing organism on this planet who actually subscribed to what you just wrote.
There is no recent shortage of people in this country who are unmoved in any way by anything beyond what some marxist college course has taught them. History means nothing.[/quote]
What is scary is we are coming upon people who not only don’t know or remember the horrors of communism/socialism, but even after it has failed time and again, over and over, costing millions of lives, they still think it’s good idea. That’s what scares me. I don’t understand the philosophy of if it failed many times, let’s try it again, it’ll work this time…I don’t care how many times you try it, 1 + 1 will never equal 3. Communistic and socialistic methodologies, cannot and do not and will not ever work in practice. It is flawed in it’s core.
[quote]pat wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
Capitalism is a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. A progressive tax policy can’t begin to equalize it.
Oh. My. God.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. I would rather be labeled an incoherent idiot than to think there is an actual living, breathing organism on this planet who actually subscribed to what you just wrote.
There is no recent shortage of people in this country who are unmoved in any way by anything beyond what some marxist college course has taught them. History means nothing.
What is scary is we are coming upon people who not only don’t know or remember the horrors of communism/socialism, but even after it has failed time and again, over and over, costing millions of lives, they still think it’s good idea. That’s what scares me. I don’t understand the philosophy of if it failed many times, let’s try it again, it’ll work this time…I don’t care how many times you try it, 1 + 1 will never equal 3. Communistic and socialistic methodologies, cannot and do not and will not ever work in practice. It is flawed in it’s core.[/quote]
It’s the astronomical arrogance of [quote]Yeah, but WE weren’t in charge during those failures[/quote]
Collectivist ideologies, including insurance, are a SCAM perpetrated to render one group of people beholden to another for the enrichment of the latter.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
Capitalism is a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. A progressive tax policy can’t begin to equalize it.
Oh. My. God.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. I would rather be labeled an incoherent idiot than to think there is an actual living, breathing organism on this planet who actually subscribed to what you just wrote.
What is hilarious is that he wrote that on the Internet, which probably means he has a roof above his head, indoor plumbing, electricity and artificial light…
…is it really an accomplishment that capitalism has made poor people so rich that they can afford that amount of ignorance?
[/quote]
It would be great if he’d move to Africa where Barack Sr. helped implement Marxist policies in Kenya, and where Mugabe does the same in Zimbabwe. Is it any surprise that dollar-a-day poverty is so common there? Meanwhile, Ghana grows at 6%/year. Is it any wonder people travel from all over Africa to work there in their dreaded capitalist system?
Why is Russia so into capitalism now? Why is Colombia? Why is Peru? They’ve all had their fill of communism thankyouverymuch. Dollar-a-day poverty just isn’t that appealing.