Are progressives actually open-minded?

[Wry Catcher]

dimocrats will not vote for anyone but a piece of shit democrat, Democrats like me will vote for the person who actually moves the country forward, and not backward like the current occupant of the suit. Liberals are the epitome of regressive policy, they take away choice, and give the government the right to DICTATE what a person can have and his station in life by financial, and social control. That means the reinstatement of a RULING CLASS to choose each option for every citizen, and to force that person to accept that choice with the power of the government to enforce their decision. That is not open minded, and it is not freedom, it IS and always has been a socialist\communist\dictatorial ideal. The constitution has a "PREAMBLE" It states the reasons for it's existence. Read it, it gives a background for the things government should provide. Liberals expand the "Promote the General Welfare" clause, and ignore the "Secure the Blessings of Liberty" clause, and deny the Provide for the COMMON Defense" exists.

Another brainwashed member ^^^. As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.

Let's parse the words and debate them:

• We the People (infers that our nation will be ruled by the will of the people by the vote);
• Of the United States (infers only citizens can vote);
• In order to form a more perfect union (sum reject the union for regionalism)
• Establish Justice, (objected by the Lock her up set, for one example);
• Insure Domestic Tranquility (infers one nation of diverse people treated with the same equity)
• Provide for the common defense, human being need to be defended from terrorists and disease;
• Promote the General Welfare, which suggests equal rights in law and equity
• Secure the blessing of liberty for all the people within the parameters of law and equity (equity being the quality of being fair and impartial;
• and our Posterity; (are kids and theirs).

If the reader disagrees, explain why and enlighten me!

Why are you wrong? Oh where to begin...

For starters, the preamble is just that: a preamble. It did not dictate laws, structure of government, limitations, or anything else. It was just a quick introduction.

In addition, everything you said was "infers". There is no "infers" in law. The law is written in black and white and absolute. No inference allowed (because each side of a contractual agreement could and would have their own inferences).

Thanks so much for proving you ignorance once again.

1. I wrote: "As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.", now and into the future; nowhere did I write, It did not dictate laws, structure of government, limitations, or anything else. It was just a quick introduction.
2. PROBATIVE, is something having a tendency to prove or establish something, that you can't debate and as did and offer general examples of the meaning of these terms, makes your ignorance appear to be of the not willful kind (yes, you my infer I find you to be - and I'm being nice here - not very bright.
3. An inference is something that takes into account something not clearly stated, or sometimes clearly stated a I did in #2 above.

 

[P@triot]

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal.

They are when they exceed anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states. You'd know that if you tried reading the Constitution.

I've had ConLaw. Maybe you ought to read COTUS with an unbiased agenda and using sagacious reasoning. Start with the Magna Carta, and worked your way through the Articles of Federation and the debate in Philadelphia during the drafting of COTUS.

Debates are not law. Law is the settled agreement post-debate. I've read the U.S. Constitution hundreds of times - each without a "biased agenda". The only agenda I've ever had was to understand it. And it is very clear. It becomes even more clear reading the writings of the founders, the Federalist Papers, etc.

 

[owebo]

dimocrats will not vote for anyone but a piece of shit democrat, Democrats like me will vote for the person who actually moves the country forward, and not backward like the current occupant of the suit. Liberals are the epitome of regressive policy, they take away choice, and give the government the right to DICTATE what a person can have and his station in life by financial, and social control. That means the reinstatement of a RULING CLASS to choose each option for every citizen, and to force that person to accept that choice with the power of the government to enforce their decision. That is not open minded, and it is not freedom, it IS and always has been a socialist\communist\dictatorial ideal. The constitution has a "PREAMBLE" It states the reasons for it's existence. Read it, it gives a background for the things government should provide. Liberals expand the "Promote the General Welfare" clause, and ignore the "Secure the Blessings of Liberty" clause, and deny the Provide for the COMMON Defense" exists.

Another brainwashed member ^^^. As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.

Let's parse the words and debate them:

• We the People (infers that our nation will be ruled by the will of the people by the vote);
• Of the United States (infers only citizens can vote);
• In order to form a more perfect union (sum reject the union for regionalism)
• Establish Justice, (objected by the Lock her up set, for one example);
• Insure Domestic Tranquility (infers one nation of diverse people treated with the same equity)
• Provide for the common defense, human being need to be defended from terrorists and disease;
• Promote the General Welfare, which suggests equal rights in law and equity
• Secure the blessing of liberty for all the people within the parameters of law and equity (equity being the quality of being fair and impartial;
• and our Posterity; (are kids and theirs).

If the reader disagrees, explain why and enlighten me!

Why are you wrong? Oh where to begin...

For starters, the preamble is just that: a preamble. It did not dictate laws, structure of government, limitations, or anything else. It was just a quick introduction.

In addition, everything you said was "infers". There is no "infers" in law. The law is written in black and white and absolute. No inference allowed (because each side of a contractual agreement could and would have their own inferences).

Thanks so much for proving you ignorance once again.

1. I wrote: "As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.", now and into the future; nowhere did I write, It did not dictate laws, structure of government, limitations, or anything else. It was just a quick introduction.
2. PROBATIVE, is something having a tendency to prove or establish something, that you can't debate and as did and offer general examples of the meaning of these terms, makes your ignorance appear to be of the not willful kind (yes, you my infer I find you to be - and I'm being nice here - not very bright.
3. An inference is something that takes into account something not clearly stated, or sometimes clearly stated a I did in #2 above.

You're pretty close minded.....

 

[P@triot]

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

Only an idiot spends more money than they have....

I must be an idiot. My first house which I bought in my early 20's developed a roof leak. I borrowed money I did not have to replace the roof, so it didn't not ruin everything inside; I also borrowed money to insulate the walls and replaced the double hung wooden windows with modern windows (at the time) which kept the cold out.

Budgets are plans, when shit hits the fan (Katrina, is an example of shit hitting the fan due to poor maintenance and failure to build proper levees). Gee who would have thought a hurricane would hit NOLA? Maybe the people who went to the bar in Galveston, TX and saw pictures of the destruction of that town 80 or so years before.

But a responsible person has a "rainy day fund" for stuff like Hurricane Katrina. What rational person expects to go though life without any unexpected costs?!?

 

[owebo]

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

Only an idiot spends more money than they have....

I must be an idiot. My first house which I bought in my early 20's developed a roof leak. I borrowed money I did not have to replace the roof, so it didn't not ruin everything inside; I also borrowed money to insulate the walls and replaced the double hung wooden windows with modern windows (at the time) which kept the cold out.

Budgets are plans, when shit hits the fan (Katrina, is an example of shit hitting the fan due to poor maintenance and failure to build proper levees). Gee who would have thought a hurricane would hit NOLA? Maybe the people who went to the bar in Galveston, TX and saw pictures of the destruction of that town 80 or so years before.

But a responsible person has a "rainy day fund" for stuff like Hurricane Katrina. What rational person expects to go though life without any unexpected costs?!?

Takers.....

 

[koshergrl]

I disagree. Remember those pharma companies who overcharged?

Ummm..no, because there is no such thing as "overcharged"; if the ask is too high then you don't have to pay the ask, it's called voluntary exchange and it works just fine as long as you keep third parties (government) out of it. Companies can't charge more than their customers are willing to pay for their products and/or services, otherwise companies don't stay in business and more efficient producers take their place. The only time that equation becomes short-circuited is when you get politicians and bureaucrats involved, then it becomes involuntary exchange and the price mechanism gets distorted to the point where it no longer reflects true supply/demand and cost of production.

Then I would also guess you're OK with denying people who have pre existing conditions?

For insurance? You bet I am OK with it, you can't insure against risk that has already occurred, but we don't have health insurance anymore, what we have is a bastardized health care market and "health care cost shifting" policies, which is why health care is so fucking expensive.

And I bet you also think public schools should be ended and only people who want to and can afford an education should get one. Is that right? An education isn't a right either?

No, education isn't a right unless you can provide it for yourself, it's another "goods and services", I don't understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp, it's very simple, YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S LABOR.

Hey, I don't have kids and my nephews go to the most expensive private school in Michigan. Mitt Romney went to that school. Remember it came out he was a bully back in school? It was at this school. My brother pays $40k a year for private school. He didn't mind paying for public schools but if poor people who depend on public schools didn't show up to vote or voted GOP???

I am all for Defunding public schools. Same with welfare. If you can't afford to educate and feed your child don't have one. We are already overpopulated.

That's nice, however none of what you posted has anything to do with the concept of RIGHTS.

It's immoral for me to put a gun to your head and force you to pay for something that I want or need, it's no less immoral for government (or the majority) to do the same thing, both scenarios are violations of your rights as a human being, it's essentially turning you into a slave for whatever period of time was required for you to earn the money that is being taken from you by force.

The reason people advocate using government force to make people pay for XYZ (or do XYZ) is because their arguments aren't sound enough or persuasive enough to get people to do it voluntarily, which explains why generally speaking when the government issues "mandates" along with "promised benefits" you can always count on the getting exactly the opposite of the "promised benefits"; if the benefits are so good and the costs are justified why the hell do you have to use FORCE to get people to go along with it?

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal. Taxes are in COTUS, and are legal. So stop echoing the RW Bullshit / meme and try to be rational.

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

.
Do you have any knowledge at all of why our Revolutionary War stared?
Over taxing, too many regulations and no representation.

NYC thinks it was a "non-religious jihad against the non-religious" or something like that.

No, it doesn't make sense when he says it either.

 

[sealybobo]

AH ha! We already do make doctors provide services on people who can't pay.

Yeah...and that's exactly when healthcare costs started to spiral out of control. That's what happens ever time the government gets involved in private industry.

Do you want to end that?

Abso-freaking-lutely. We don't demand that Walmart provide free food to starving people, why do we demand that hospitals provide free healthcare to sick people?

Especially considering that a person's inability to pay today is no indication of their ability to pay tomorrow. Put them on a payment plan so they are responsible for their own damn healthcare.

In addition, all of you faux bleeding-heart progressives can create a foundation to cover the healthcare costs of those in need. That is, if you people aren't too greedy and lazy to do so!

Walmart takes food stamps. Hospitals take Medicaid and Medicare patients.

A civilized country should provide at a minimum food, shelter, healthcare, and basic education to all regardless of their ability to pay.

Where's my minimum food? If there are jobs out there and you can't get one how long do we give you free food? Republicans are saying get off the food stamps! And don't have kids you can't afford. All these murderers are coming from poor areas and fatherless young men. No doubt fed by foodstamps. Stop having these kids unless you can afford them. Stop it! Us liberals need to take a look at what we are defending here. And we're going to try it there way. If you break your arm you're going to owe the money to the hospital.

 

[P@triot]

Where's my minimum food? If there are jobs out there and you can't get one how long do we give you free food? Republicans are saying get off the food stamps! And don't have kids you can't afford. All these murderers are coming from poor areas and fatherless young men. No doubt fed by foodstamps. Stop having these kids unless you can afford them. Stop it! Us liberals need to take a look at what we are defending here. And we're going to try it there way. If you break your arm you're going to owe the money to the hospital.

That's a great post Sealy. But here is the saddest part about it all:

The left has completely destroyed this country (divided it, run up $20 trillion in debt, etc.) by demanding that government engage in illegal activities to support an ideology which can easily be achieved in the free market.

If progressives like Wry Catcher and Pogo weren't so selfish, greedy, and lazy, they could easily create foundations that would feed the hungry, provide healthcare for the sick, and house the homeless - all without any resistance from anyone. In fact, conservatives would join their efforts. Nobody could complain. Nobody could block their efforts. Nobody could reverse their progress.

 

[peach174]

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

Only an idiot spends more money than they have....

I must be an idiot. My first house which I bought in my early 20's developed a roof leak. I borrowed money I did not have to replace the roof, so it didn't not ruin everything inside; I also borrowed money to insulate the walls and replaced the double hung wooden windows with modern windows (at the time) which kept the cold out.

Budgets are plans, when shit hits the fan (Katrina, is an example of shit hitting the fan due to poor maintenance and failure to build proper levees). Gee who would have thought a hurricane would hit NOLA? Maybe the people who went to the bar in Galveston, TX and saw pictures of the destruction of that town 80 or so years before.

Did you ever look into where the money went that was suppose to keep up that maintenance and new building ?
I'll save you a lot of time, because it takes many hours of researching, was redirected for other programs by Dem's.
Feel free to look for yourself, the money trail is very informative.

 

[emilynghiem]

I disagree. Remember those pharma companies who overcharged?

Ummm..no, because there is no such thing as "overcharged"; if the ask is too high then you don't have to pay the ask, it's called voluntary exchange and it works just fine as long as you keep third parties (government) out of it. Companies can't charge more than their customers are willing to pay for their products and/or services, otherwise companies don't stay in business and more efficient producers take their place. The only time that equation becomes short-circuited is when you get politicians and bureaucrats involved, then it becomes involuntary exchange and the price mechanism gets distorted to the point where it no longer reflects true supply/demand and cost of production.

Then I would also guess you're OK with denying people who have pre existing conditions?

For insurance? You bet I am OK with it, you can't insure against risk that has already occurred, but we don't have health insurance anymore, what we have is a bastardized health care market and "health care cost shifting" policies, which is why health care is so fucking expensive.

And I bet you also think public schools should be ended and only people who want to and can afford an education should get one. Is that right? An education isn't a right either?

No, education isn't a right unless you can provide it for yourself, it's another "goods and services", I don't understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp, it's very simple, YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S LABOR.

Hey, I don't have kids and my nephews go to the most expensive private school in Michigan. Mitt Romney went to that school. Remember it came out he was a bully back in school? It was at this school. My brother pays $40k a year for private school. He didn't mind paying for public schools but if poor people who depend on public schools didn't show up to vote or voted GOP???

I am all for Defunding public schools. Same with welfare. If you can't afford to educate and feed your child don't have one. We are already overpopulated.

That's nice, however none of what you posted has anything to do with the concept of RIGHTS.

It's immoral for me to put a gun to your head and force you to pay for something that I want or need, it's no less immoral for government (or the majority) to do the same thing, both scenarios are violations of your rights as a human being, it's essentially turning you into a slave for whatever period of time was required for you to earn the money that is being taken from you by force.

The reason people advocate using government force to make people pay for XYZ (or do XYZ) is because their arguments aren't sound enough or persuasive enough to get people to do it voluntarily, which explains why generally speaking when the government issues "mandates" along with "promised benefits" you can always count on the getting exactly the opposite of the "promised benefits"; if the benefits are so good and the costs are justified why the hell do you have to use FORCE to get people to go along with it?

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal. Taxes are in COTUS, and are legal. So stop echoing the RW Bullshit / meme and try to be rational.

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

Dear Wry Catcher Taxes are only constitutional where we CONSENT to pay them.
There is a natural law called "no taxation without representation"

So when Congress passed ACA mandates by only Democrats voting yes, representing believers in right to health care through govt,
and all Republicans voted NO representing taxpayers who believe in states rights and federal govt having no authority to mandate
how to pay for health care through insurance,
this was TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

The liberals tend to look at the letter of the law and assume this was
Constitutional if it passed through both Congress, Executive and Judicial branches.

But they miss the SPIRIT OF THE LAWS that these mandates violated for both left and right.
The left believe in universal care, not paying trillions to health insurance corporate lobbyists who benefited from this
bill at taxpayers expense as a compromise.
The right believe in states rights to vote on such laws regarding health care or insurance
so that the taxpaying citizens have representation.
And also, the bill passed through Congress as a PUBLIC HEALTH BILL based on revising
a previous bill, and was neither generated or passed as a TAX revenue bill.
But when it was passed through the Supreme Court, the ruling on it was as a TAX bill.

So two different versions were essentially passed,
one through Congress as a public health bill
and a different interpretation or REVISION as a tax bill passed through Courts.

Thus ACA did not meet Constitutional standards,
but bypassed representation and separation of powers
by changing it midstream through the process
as two different bills essentially.

The vote in Congress demonstrates the BIAS in partisan beliefs,
where only DEMOCRATS supported it because it establishes what
is stated as a BELIEF in the party platform: "We BELIEVE that
health care is a right not a privilege" so this is ESTABLISHING
a political BELIEF through federal govt which violates Constitutional beliefs of other citizens opposed.

This was unconstitutional on several grounds.

So this is one huge difference between how liberals
interpret the Constitution to follow the "letter of the process" but
missing the SPIRIT of the laws vs. Conservatives who enforce
the limits, check and balances on govt.

Bush and Roberts conceded more to the pressures of liberals
because of those political beliefs, such as against the war and
not having faith that WMD were justifications, which Bush retracted
because the liberal Democrats WITHDREW their CONSENT.

but Obama has NOT respected the CONSENT of conservatives
with different beliefs, but has continued to push legislation and
rulings that VIOLATE conservative beliefs in limited federal govt
and states rights. Not just ACA mandates, but LGBT biased laws
on marriage and bathroom policies that don't tolerate beliefs of other
people equally faith based, not proven by science, and up to people's personal free choice what to believe.

So that's a HUGE difference.

 

[emilynghiem]

dimocrats will not vote for anyone but a piece of shit democrat, Democrats like me will vote for the person who actually moves the country forward, and not backward like the current occupant of the suit. Liberals are the epitome of regressive policy, they take away choice, and give the government the right to DICTATE what a person can have and his station in life by financial, and social control. That means the reinstatement of a RULING CLASS to choose each option for every citizen, and to force that person to accept that choice with the power of the government to enforce their decision. That is not open minded, and it is not freedom, it IS and always has been a socialist\communist\dictatorial ideal. The constitution has a "PREAMBLE" It states the reasons for it's existence. Read it, it gives a background for the things government should provide. Liberals expand the "Promote the General Welfare" clause, and ignore the "Secure the Blessings of Liberty" clause, and deny the Provide for the COMMON Defense" exists.

Another brainwashed member ^^^. As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.

Let's parse the words and debate them:

• We the People (infers that our nation will be ruled by the will of the people by the vote);
• Of the United States (infers only citizens can vote);
• In order to form a more perfect union (sum reject the union for regionalism)
• Establish Justice, (objected by the Lock her up set, for one example);
• Insure Domestic Tranquility (infers one nation of diverse people treated with the same equity)
• Provide for the common defense, human being need to be defended from terrorists and disease;
• Promote the General Welfare, which suggests equal rights in law and equity
• Secure the blessing of liberty for all the people within the parameters of law and equity (equity being the quality of being fair and impartial;
• and our Posterity; (are kids and theirs).

If the reader disagrees, explain why and enlighten me!

Dear Wry Catcher
Not everyone agrees on right to health care or right to life policed through govt. So federal protection from epidemics crossing into our borders from outside is one thing, but regulating internal matters of sustainable health care is argued as reserved to States and people Not authorized to Federal Govt.

There are Constitutional principles of
* due process of laws, and not depriving citizens of liberty except if Convicted of a crime that merits such a penalty by law
* equal protection of laws for all people regardless of belief or creed (ie not penalizing people who believe that marriage laws or health care remain states rights and thus cannot comply with federal mandates without violating their consciences and beliefs for which we face fines by laws we had no say in)
* no taxation without representation
* consent of the governed as the authority of law and social contracts between people and govt

However you interpret the Preamble it cannot be construed as giving one person or group the right to Impose those values or beliefs on others to violate due process of laws by depriving civil liberties and free choice, or violate religious freedom or establishment clauses, or deny equal protection of laws by discriminating by creed.

The same Con laws that defend your right to express and exercise your beliefs, whether religious or political, equally protect the same of others from being infringed on by abusing govt to Impose or establish those beliefs not everyone agrees on shares or believes. These remain free choice out of respect for equal protection of people of all creeds.

Thank you Wry Catcher
I see that you strive to be fair.
We should well work together to embrace and support each other's political beliefs even when we don't agree to incorporate them thru govt, so that we collaborate on mutual solutions including all input and interests. And stop competing to dominate or exclude one belief or another, which violates Constitutional equality. I support you in defending inclusion and equal respect for beliefs, especially where we disagree

 

[emilynghiem]

Ummm..no, because there is no such thing as "overcharged"; if the ask is too high then you don't have to pay the ask, it's called voluntary exchange and it works just fine as long as you keep third parties (government) out of it. Companies can't charge more than their customers are willing to pay for their products and/or services, otherwise companies don't stay in business and more efficient producers take their place. The only time that equation becomes short-circuited is when you get politicians and bureaucrats involved, then it becomes involuntary exchange and the price mechanism gets distorted to the point where it no longer reflects true supply/demand and cost of production.


For insurance? You bet I am OK with it, you can't insure against risk that has already occurred, but we don't have health insurance anymore, what we have is a bastardized health care market and "health care cost shifting" policies, which is why health care is so fucking expensive.

No, education isn't a right unless you can provide it for yourself, it's another "goods and services", I don't understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp, it's very simple, YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S LABOR.

Hey, I don't have kids and my nephews go to the most expensive private school in Michigan. Mitt Romney went to that school. Remember it came out he was a bully back in school? It was at this school. My brother pays $40k a year for private school. He didn't mind paying for public schools but if poor people who depend on public schools didn't show up to vote or voted GOP???

I am all for Defunding public schools. Same with welfare. If you can't afford to educate and feed your child don't have one. We are already overpopulated.

That's nice, however none of what you posted has anything to do with the concept of RIGHTS.

It's immoral for me to put a gun to your head and force you to pay for something that I want or need, it's no less immoral for government (or the majority) to do the same thing, both scenarios are violations of your rights as a human being, it's essentially turning you into a slave for whatever period of time was required for you to earn the money that is being taken from you by force.

The reason people advocate using government force to make people pay for XYZ (or do XYZ) is because their arguments aren't sound enough or persuasive enough to get people to do it voluntarily, which explains why generally speaking when the government issues "mandates" along with "promised benefits" you can always count on the getting exactly the opposite of the "promised benefits"; if the benefits are so good and the costs are justified why the hell do you have to use FORCE to get people to go along with it?

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal. Taxes are in COTUS, and are legal. So stop echoing the RW Bullshit / meme and try to be rational.

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

.
Do you have any knowledge at all of why our Revolutionary War stared?
Over taxing, too many regulations and no representation.

NYC thinks it was a "non-religious jihad against the non-religious" or something like that.

No, it doesn't make sense when he says it either.

Dear koshergrl and NYcarbineer
What did the term nonreligious jihad mean-- the Genocide against Native Americans to take over land by force?

Because PurpleOwl criticized this similarly AS a religious crusade based on Manifest Destiny.

Are you saying it was Secular politics and not church based religious?

PO argues it was religious

Are you talking about Native American Genocide as a Jihad ? Or enslavement of Africans as property bought and sold by banks as part of the mortgage?

 

[emilynghiem]

dimocrats will not vote for anyone but a piece of shit democrat, Democrats like me will vote for the person who actually moves the country forward, and not backward like the current occupant of the suit. Liberals are the epitome of regressive policy, they take away choice, and give the government the right to DICTATE what a person can have and his station in life by financial, and social control. That means the reinstatement of a RULING CLASS to choose each option for every citizen, and to force that person to accept that choice with the power of the government to enforce their decision. That is not open minded, and it is not freedom, it IS and always has been a socialist\communist\dictatorial ideal. The constitution has a "PREAMBLE" It states the reasons for it's existence. Read it, it gives a background for the things government should provide. Liberals expand the "Promote the General Welfare" clause, and ignore the "Secure the Blessings of Liberty" clause, and deny the Provide for the COMMON Defense" exists.

Another brainwashed member ^^^. As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.

Let's parse the words and debate them:

• We the People (infers that our nation will be ruled by the will of the people by the vote);
• Of the United States (infers only citizens can vote);
• In order to form a more perfect union (sum reject the union for regionalism)
• Establish Justice, (objected by the Lock her up set, for one example);
• Insure Domestic Tranquility (infers one nation of diverse people treated with the same equity)
• Provide for the common defense, human being need to be defended from terrorists and disease;
• Promote the General Welfare, which suggests equal rights in law and equity
• Secure the blessing of liberty for all the people within the parameters of law and equity (equity being the quality of being fair and impartial;
• and our Posterity; (are kids and theirs).

If the reader disagrees, explain why and enlighten me!

Why are you wrong? Oh where to begin...

For starters, the preamble is just that: a preamble. It did not dictate laws, structure of government, limitations, or anything else. It was just a quick introduction.

In addition, everything you said was "infers". There is no "infers" in law. The law is written in black and white and absolute. No inference allowed (because each side of a contractual agreement could and would have their own inferences).

Thanks so much for proving you ignorance once again.

1. I wrote: "As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.", now and into the future; nowhere did I write, It did not dictate laws, structure of government, limitations, or anything else. It was just a quick introduction.
2. PROBATIVE, is something having a tendency to prove or establish something, that you can't debate and as did and offer general examples of the meaning of these terms, makes your ignorance appear to be of the not willful kind (yes, you my infer I find you to be - and I'm being nice here - not very bright.
3. An inference is something that takes into account something not clearly stated, or sometimes clearly stated a I did in #2 above.

You're pretty close minded.....

No owebo only defensive when met with the same. Wry Catcher is one quite capable of supporting an open discourse and intelligent exchange of ideas. Opinionated but not closed. Very reasonable and intelligent.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal.

They are when they exceed anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states. You'd know that if you tried reading the Constitution.

I've had ConLaw. Maybe you ought to read COTUS with an unbiased agenda and using sagacious reasoning. Start with the Magna Carta, and worked your way through the Articles of Federation and the debate in Philadelphia during the drafting of COTUS.

Debates are not law. Law is the settled agreement post-debate. I've read the U.S. Constitution hundreds of times - each without a "biased agenda". The only agenda I've ever had was to understand it. And it is very clear. It becomes even more clear reading the writings of the founders, the Federalist Papers, etc.

More proof of your ignorance, do you not understand the Federalist Papers (FP's) purpose, or the fact that the three authors of the essays in the FP's were highly educated, had read the Magna Carta, the political philosophers of the Enlightenment, and had argued with each other and other founders on what form of government is best and how it ought to be administered?

Debates in court are always about the law, and decided when points and authorities are provided to the court in support of the opposing arguments of the litigants.

Stop digging, that hole is deep enough!

 

[Wry Catcher]

dimocrats will not vote for anyone but a piece of shit democrat, Democrats like me will vote for the person who actually moves the country forward, and not backward like the current occupant of the suit. Liberals are the epitome of regressive policy, they take away choice, and give the government the right to DICTATE what a person can have and his station in life by financial, and social control. That means the reinstatement of a RULING CLASS to choose each option for every citizen, and to force that person to accept that choice with the power of the government to enforce their decision. That is not open minded, and it is not freedom, it IS and always has been a socialist\communist\dictatorial ideal. The constitution has a "PREAMBLE" It states the reasons for it's existence. Read it, it gives a background for the things government should provide. Liberals expand the "Promote the General Welfare" clause, and ignore the "Secure the Blessings of Liberty" clause, and deny the Provide for the COMMON Defense" exists.

Another brainwashed member ^^^. As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.

Let's parse the words and debate them:

• We the People (infers that our nation will be ruled by the will of the people by the vote);
• Of the United States (infers only citizens can vote);
• In order to form a more perfect union (sum reject the union for regionalism)
• Establish Justice, (objected by the Lock her up set, for one example);
• Insure Domestic Tranquility (infers one nation of diverse people treated with the same equity)
• Provide for the common defense, human being need to be defended from terrorists and disease;
• Promote the General Welfare, which suggests equal rights in law and equity
• Secure the blessing of liberty for all the people within the parameters of law and equity (equity being the quality of being fair and impartial;
• and our Posterity; (are kids and theirs).

If the reader disagrees, explain why and enlighten me!

Why are you wrong? Oh where to begin...

For starters, the preamble is just that: a preamble. It did not dictate laws, structure of government, limitations, or anything else. It was just a quick introduction.

In addition, everything you said was "infers". There is no "infers" in law. The law is written in black and white and absolute. No inference allowed (because each side of a contractual agreement could and would have their own inferences).

Thanks so much for proving you ignorance once again.

1. I wrote: "As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.", now and into the future; nowhere did I write, It did not dictate laws, structure of government, limitations, or anything else. It was just a quick introduction.
2. PROBATIVE, is something having a tendency to prove or establish something, that you can't debate and as did and offer general examples of the meaning of these terms, makes your ignorance appear to be of the not willful kind (yes, you my infer I find you to be - and I'm being nice here - not very bright.
3. An inference is something that takes into account something not clearly stated, or sometimes clearly stated a I did in #2 above.

You're pretty close minded.....

FU2

 

[Wry Catcher]

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

Only an idiot spends more money than they have....

I must be an idiot. My first house which I bought in my early 20's developed a roof leak. I borrowed money I did not have to replace the roof, so it didn't not ruin everything inside; I also borrowed money to insulate the walls and replaced the double hung wooden windows with modern windows (at the time) which kept the cold out.

Budgets are plans, when shit hits the fan (Katrina, is an example of shit hitting the fan due to poor maintenance and failure to build proper levees). Gee who would have thought a hurricane would hit NOLA? Maybe the people who went to the bar in Galveston, TX and saw pictures of the destruction of that town 80 or so years before.

But a responsible person has a "rainy day fund" for stuff like Hurricane Katrina. What rational person expects to go though life without any unexpected costs?!?

Nice theory, once again a thoughtless post lacking any understanding of human nature and reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey, I don't have kids and my nephews go to the most expensive private school in Michigan. Mitt Romney went to that school. Remember it came out he was a bully back in school? It was at this school. My brother pays $40k a year for private school. He didn't mind paying for public schools but if poor people who depend on public schools didn't show up to vote or voted GOP???

I am all for Defunding public schools. Same with welfare. If you can't afford to educate and feed your child don't have one. We are already overpopulated.

That's nice, however none of what you posted has anything to do with the concept of RIGHTS.

It's immoral for me to put a gun to your head and force you to pay for something that I want or need, it's no less immoral for government (or the majority) to do the same thing, both scenarios are violations of your rights as a human being, it's essentially turning you into a slave for whatever period of time was required for you to earn the money that is being taken from you by force.

The reason people advocate using government force to make people pay for XYZ (or do XYZ) is because their arguments aren't sound enough or persuasive enough to get people to do it voluntarily, which explains why generally speaking when the government issues "mandates" along with "promised benefits" you can always count on the getting exactly the opposite of the "promised benefits"; if the benefits are so good and the costs are justified why the hell do you have to use FORCE to get people to go along with it?

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal. Taxes are in COTUS, and are legal. So stop echoing the RW Bullshit / meme and try to be rational.

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

.
Do you have any knowledge at all of why our Revolutionary War stared?
Over taxing, too many regulations and no representation.

NYC thinks it was a "non-religious jihad against the non-religious" or something like that.

No, it doesn't make sense when he says it either.

Dear koshergrl and NYcarbineer
What did the term nonreligious jihad mean-- the Genocide against Native Americans to take over land by force?

Because PurpleOwl criticized this similarly AS a religious crusade based on Manifest Destiny.

Are you saying it was Secular politics and not church based religious?

PO argues it was religious

Are you talking about Native American Genocide as a Jihad ? Or enslavement of Africans as property bought and sold by banks as part of the mortgage?

A jihad is a war against non-believers.

The American Revolution was a war against non-believers.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Where's my minimum food? If there are jobs out there and you can't get one how long do we give you free food? Republicans are saying get off the food stamps! And don't have kids you can't afford. All these murderers are coming from poor areas and fatherless young men. No doubt fed by foodstamps. Stop having these kids unless you can afford them. Stop it! Us liberals need to take a look at what we are defending here. And we're going to try it there way. If you break your arm you're going to owe the money to the hospital.

That's a great post Sealy. But here is the saddest part about it all:

The left has completely destroyed this country (divided it, run up $20 trillion in debt, etc.) by demanding that government engage in illegal activities to support an ideology which can easily be achieved in the free market.

If progressives like Wry Catcher and Pogo weren't so selfish, greedy, and lazy, they could easily create foundations that would feed the hungry, provide healthcare for the sick, and house the homeless - all without any resistance from anyone. In fact, conservatives would join their efforts. Nobody could complain. Nobody could block their efforts. Nobody could reverse their progress.

Once again P@triot has demonstrated no understanding of reality, human nature or reality. BTW, your personal attacks on me and Pogo are childish, and in my case far away from reality.

 

[westwall]

Progressives claim to be "open-minded" but over the past decade or so, all evidence to the contrary. That is, until I came across this article from a homosexual muslim immigrant named Riaz Patel. He illustrated a true open-mind. I wonder how many progressives on USMB would even be willing to read what he has to say with an open-mind, much less do what he actually did. What about it sealybobo, candycorn, Slade3200, and jillian? Can you click the link below and read the entire (short) article from a fellow Hillary-supporting progressive with an open-mind?

• There exists a HUGE population in America who are desperately struggling to feed their families.

• They feel their needs are not authentically represented within this huge government.

• They feel their concerns are not being voiced by any major news outlet.

• They are tired of being called “dumb,” “bigoted” and “racist.”

• On my flight back, I realized that for many of us supporting Hillary, this election was about incredibly important social issues. It was a moral election for us. To most of the people I met on my trip, it was about survival. Literally.

• So when I read Facebook/Twitter posts this morning vilifying 50% of the country for being dumb or racist, I remember Nicole, Jim & Paula and I know that’s not true.

What a gay muslim Pakistani-american immigrant learned traveling to Alaska

No. Progressives are like children. Massive ID's with little experience to govern it. They want what they want, when they want it and they have massive tantrums when they don't get it.

 

[westwall]

That's nice, however none of what you posted has anything to do with the concept of RIGHTS.

It's immoral for me to put a gun to your head and force you to pay for something that I want or need, it's no less immoral for government (or the majority) to do the same thing, both scenarios are violations of your rights as a human being, it's essentially turning you into a slave for whatever period of time was required for you to earn the money that is being taken from you by force.

The reason people advocate using government force to make people pay for XYZ (or do XYZ) is because their arguments aren't sound enough or persuasive enough to get people to do it voluntarily, which explains why generally speaking when the government issues "mandates" along with "promised benefits" you can always count on the getting exactly the opposite of the "promised benefits"; if the benefits are so good and the costs are justified why the hell do you have to use FORCE to get people to go along with it?

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal. Taxes are in COTUS, and are legal. So stop echoing the RW Bullshit / meme and try to be rational.

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

.
Do you have any knowledge at all of why our Revolutionary War stared?
Over taxing, too many regulations and no representation.

NYC thinks it was a "non-religious jihad against the non-religious" or something like that.

No, it doesn't make sense when he says it either.

Dear koshergrl and NYcarbineer
What did the term nonreligious jihad mean-- the Genocide against Native Americans to take over land by force?

Because PurpleOwl criticized this similarly AS a religious crusade based on Manifest Destiny.

Are you saying it was Secular politics and not church based religious?

PO argues it was religious

Are you talking about Native American Genocide as a Jihad ? Or enslavement of Africans as property bought and sold by banks as part of the mortgage?

A jihad is a war against non-believers.

The American Revolution was a war against non-believers.

Gosh you are an ignorant 'tard. The American Revolution was rejection of over reaching, and over powerful GOVERNMENT. Read a book you moron.