Communists, Socialists, Fascists all agree.

[The T]

What passages in the Constitution are incompatible with socialism?

Everyone.

You mean all of them? Like, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That's incompatible with socialism? How ya figger?

Like a typical Statist. YOU omitted the rest of that poster's post.

Good Commie.

Sit Boy...

Good disingenuous doggie.

 

[AmericanFirst]

What passages in the Constitution are incompatible with socialism?

Everyone.

You mean all of them? Like, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That's incompatible with socialism? How ya figger?

The Constitution is designed to protect us from socialism. If you believe otherwise you are not as smart as you presume. Our founding fathers came here to avoid socialism. The socialists have been trying to undermine them since teddy roosevelt. Socialist are usually too stupid for their own good, look at obamaturd.

 

[WatertheTree]

What passages in the Constitution are incompatible with socialism?

Everyone.

You mean all of them? Like, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That's incompatible with socialism? How ya figger?

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law.

Socialism is theft from one to give to another, because how else would the state have to give?

 

[Dragon]

YOU omitted the rest of that poster's post.

I always eliminate empty rhetoric and pointless name-calling. (Like I just did from your post, too.) I always will. I will never eliminate anything of substance that actually deserves a response.

If you don't like having your childish garbage, which indicates nothing at all except that your mother raised you without any manners and you have the maturity of a petulant toddler, cut out as the drivel that it is, don't post it. And while you're at it, grow up.

You're welcome.

 

[Dragon]

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law.

Socialism is theft from one to give to another, because how else would the state have to give?

Taxes, which have been ruled not to conflict with the Bill of Rights. That's a little better than what AmericanFirst said, though.

 

[The T]

YOU omitted the rest of that poster's post.

I always eliminate empty rhetoric and pointless name-calling. (Like I just did from your post, too.) I always will. I will never eliminate anything of substance that actually deserves a response.

If you don't like having your childish garbage, which indicates nothing at all except that your mother raised you without any manners and you have the maturity of a petulant toddler, cut out as the drivel that it is, don't post it. And while you're at it, grow up.

You're welcome.

My childish garbage??

Really gracie?

Not name calling but labeling for context. There is a distinction.

YOU have failed to see the truth.

*Typical.*

 

[Dragon]

[snip empty rhetoric and pointless invective]

And lo and behold, nothing is left.

 

[The T]

[snip empty rhetoric and pointless invective]

And lo and behold, nothing is left.

Snip Noted.

MY POINT intact.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which of the Founders? They didn't all agree on that, you know.

True.

And those opinions changed over time. The notion of the ‘monolithic Framer’ is a myth. They were as much in disagreement then as we are today.

55 founders attended the drafting of the constitution. Only 3 refused to sign it.

And?

Sure they did...otherwise the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified...

No, they all didn’t agree as to your perception of the Constitution, and your perception has no basis in case law.

On the contrary. The Constitution that was ratified was very much a compromise, and created a far stronger government than you like. It includes provisions empowering Congress to lay taxes without limit as to the amount, to spend money on anything it wants and can justify as being for the common defense and/or the general welfare, and to regulate any commerce that crosses state lines in any way it wants consistent with the affirmative restrictions on government infringement of rights. The federal government could lay a 100% income tax on everyone and pay everyone a stipend out of that revenue if it wanted. I seriously doubt any such measure could ever pass Congress (and of course it would be a dumb idea), but there is nothing in the Constitution to forbid it. That's how little the Constitution spells out "small government." It does no such thing.

Correct.

And the Supremacy Clause of Article VI makes Federal law paramount, trumping state and local laws:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution is designed to protect us from socialism.

Nonsense.

The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty from government excess, regardless political philosophy.

Otherwise, the OP’s position that the new laws taking effect next year somehow compromise liberty is naïve and inane, a simple increase in the number of laws does not necessarily mean a loss of liberty and each law must be evaluated on its own merits to determine if it is in violation of individual rights.

 

[konradv]

Socialists claim that because they hate the fact that we are a free society, which they hate. You are wrong.

I am not a socialist but I am right. Our founders did not free the slaves, protect the indigenous people, allow women to vote or hold office or allow just any man to vote. We corrected these shortcomings in their stunted idea of freedom and here we have a bunch of teabaggers who would be overjoyed to reverse that back to an era that was a comparative dark age of horror and oppression for those who had the bad luck to be born not white, not male or not wealthy.

You sound bitter...why? And I notice you ignored the Three-Fifths compromise post...WHY? History bother you that much?

It was hardly the only compromise and the main reason why the "original intent" argument is a myth.

 

[The T]

I am not a socialist but I am right. Our founders did not free the slaves, protect the indigenous people, allow women to vote or hold office or allow just any man to vote. We corrected these shortcomings in their stunted idea of freedom and here we have a bunch of teabaggers who would be overjoyed to reverse that back to an era that was a comparative dark age of horror and oppression for those who had the bad luck to be born not white, not male or not wealthy.

You sound bitter...why? And I notice you ignored the Three-Fifths compromise post...WHY? History bother you that much?

It was hardly the only compromise and the main reason why the "original intent" argument is a myth.

It wasn't the ONLY compromise...but then we would have to be subjective as to the adoption of the Constitution...which I was doing in regard to Slavery.

 

[daveman]

40,000 freedoms stripped from people in one year alone. Who can still consider themselves a free person in this country?

Obama and his cronies, who are above the law.

 

[daveman]

We elect these assholes to make laws not to sabotage the government, well at least sane Americans do, besides, some of the most constitutionally challenged laws this country has ever seen has come out the republican class of 2010.

So, the bad laws only come from Republicans. Got it.

Do you have any ideas that can't be easily expressed on a protest sign or a bumper sticker?

 

[daveman]

This country was founded to a be run by an aristocracy of male, slaveholding landowners.

Socialists claim that because they hate the fact that we are a free society, which they hate. You are wrong.

I am not a socialist but I am right. Our founders did not free the slaves, protect the indigenous people, allow women to vote or hold office or allow just any man to vote. We corrected these shortcomings in their stunted idea of freedom and here we have a bunch of teabaggers who would be overjoyed to reverse that back to an era that was a comparative dark age of horror and oppression for those who had the bad luck to be born not white, not male or not wealthy.

Interesting. Then those leftists who claim they're just like the Founding Fathers may be right after all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Its been a good year.

About 40,000 state laws taking effect at the start of the new year will change rules about getting abortions in New Hampshire, learning about gays and lesbians in California, getting jobs in Alabama and even driving golf carts in Georgia.

Several federal rules change with the new year, too, including a Social Security increase amounting to $450 a year for the average recipients and stiff fines up to $2,700 per offense for truckers and bus drivers caught using hand-held cellphones while driving.

40,000 new laws to go into effect in 2012 - US news - Life - msnbc.com

The question is, do we want to be free or not?

Give me welfare or give me death.


Where a welfare dollar is spent you get an extra 40 cents out of thin air.



Democrats are on to something I tell ya.

Kind of figured you for a red stater.

 

[daveman]

Sure they did...otherwise the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified...

Idiot.

Yup. It was written, agreed on and signed. No doubt a few weren't happy with the new concept of having freedom and liberty and likely hoped to shred it someday and rewrite it. Took a couple hundred years, but it's being attempted now.

To insist on socialism is to hate our consitution. Obama stated that our free market capitalist system doesn't work and never has. Glad he cleared that up so we know which side he is really on.

Also, there are no provisions for the government to do half the things they do, such as redistribute wealth.

While it seems reasonable to pay taxes for running the government, they were never intended to settle into careers that make them wealthy. The taxation is out of hand to fund all their programs, including health care, that is unconstitutional. Some aren't about to let a little thing like our constitution stop them from carrying out their agenda. They have the audacity to think they deserve to have more power and say over our lives than each of us.

And the fact that not paying taxes can result in people losing their property is wrong. I've seen people lose family homes after generations lived there due to falling behind in taxes.

The government sees to it that none of us ever really own anything. You pay forever long after the long mortgage payment.

I'm outta rep. Owed...

I'm on it.

 

[daveman]

Its been a good year.

About 40,000 state laws taking effect at the start of the new year will change rules about getting abortions in New Hampshire, learning about gays and lesbians in California, getting jobs in Alabama and even driving golf carts in Georgia.

Several federal rules change with the new year, too, including a Social Security increase amounting to $450 a year for the average recipients and stiff fines up to $2,700 per offense for truckers and bus drivers caught using hand-held cellphones while driving.

40,000 new laws to go into effect in 2012 - US news - Life - msnbc.com

The question is, do we want to be free or not?

I agree. We want to be free. The right wing has got to stop legislating "Women's rights". They have to stop attacking the gays. The country will never be free as long as we let these faux Jesus freaks try to run our lives. The last 20 years has shown they can't run a pogo stick. Letting them run anything is merely inviting disaster.

 

[daveman]

YOU omitted the rest of that poster's post.

I always eliminate empty rhetoric and pointless name-calling. (Like I just did from your post, too.) I always will. I will never eliminate anything of substance that actually deserves a response.

If you don't like having your childish garbage, which indicates nothing at all except that your mother raised you without any manners and you have the maturity of a petulant toddler, cut out as the drivel that it is, don't post it. And while you're at it, grow up.

You're welcome.

 

[francoHFW]

Laws are bad now? What a dumbass dittohead generalization that is...Jefferson wanted to regulate corporations and so did everyone else. The question is, how much? The answer is more than Bush and his greedy cronies wanted to. GD a-holes and their silly dupes...

And Fascists and Communists agree on nothing but totalitarianism, and socialists, except in the dumbazz Ugly 'Merican Cold War Dinosaur definition, ARE ALWAYS democratic

 

[daveman]

Laws are bad now? What a dumbass dittohead generalization that is...Jefferson wanted to regulate corporations and so did everyone else. The question is, how much? The answer is more than Bush and his greedy cronies wanted to. GD a-holes and their silly dupes...

And Fascists and Communists agree on nothing but totalitarianism, and socialists, except in the dumbazz Ugly 'Merican Cold War Dinosaur definition, ARE ALWAYS democratic

Leftists can't make an argument without redefining words.

It's intellectually dishonest, but it's all we expect from you.