What are libertarians?

[Foxfyre]

Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

Our founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular said the exact same thing. And Abe Lincoln addressed your last point.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

You idiots won't give up this strawman. No one ever said the Constitution can't change. In fact, it has been legitimately changed many times through history. They are called Constitutional Amendments. Here is the question for you two to attempt to see through your dim fog of stupidity. The question is HOW it is changed.

What the Constitution says: 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and then it goes to State legislatures where 3/4 need to ratify.

What you say: The legislature can do it any time they want, and the courts even moreso.

How is it possible at this point you still don't even grasp what is being discussed? You have both well earned the title, Simpleton.

A 'framework' doesn't need to be changed.

Jefferson, Adams and Madison address WHAT the role of government IS...

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

Are you trying to make an argument for unlimited government?

Good luck in getting him to make an argument on his own at all. He's very good at finding stuff to cut and paste and put together whether or not he understands what he is arguing though.

But yes, most of those who have never studied the founding documents and who have been schooled in the 'living Constitution', i.e. it can be whatever we want it to be, school of thought, invariably resort to the tired argument that the Founders were old white guys way back then and are irrelevant for us here and now.

It goes back to my previous argument that libertarians (little "L") hold to a conviction, a belief in, a principle of, a concept of liberty that the Founders built into the Constitution. It is a concept that a free people are blessed with God given rights (or natural rights if you don't believe in God) and that great blessings are given to and proceed from a people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.

It is a concept that government is given its authority by the people, not the other way around. It is a concept that people are not free if their rights are assigned to them via dictator or monarch or pope or other totalitarian authority.

It is a concept that the role of the U.S. government is to enact sufficient laws and regulation to secure our rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and not do physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other. Toward that end the U.S. government provides the common defense and promotes the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare without regard for class or socioeconomic status or political affiliations.

Principles don't change. The principles embraced by the Founders have not changed. All that has changed is an American public that no longer is taught those principles and too many no longer embrace them. We have too many who have been taught to believe that the role of government is to do for the people whatever they don't and will not do for themselves. And it is that which will bring us down.

Ironic, you copy and paste false and out of context quotes of our founders and have the nerve to criticize.

Do you check every quotation you cut and paste of the Founders before you cut and paste them? Can you say with certainty that you have never cut and pasted one that was altered or incorrect? That misrepresented the intent of the Founder by taking it out of context? Over the years I almost certainly have when I didn't take the time to do my homework. Just this week in fact there was one that wasn't exactly out of context but had been sufficiently altered to be suspect. And I feel bad when I do that because I should have been paying closer attention. Especially when I already knew better. It just happened to be in the group and I didn't delete it. I'll take my proper lumps for that.

But I wasn't criticizing you. I was simply commenting that you generally debate via cut and paste with a bit of personal comments about others mixed in, but I don't think I've ever seen you type out your own argument in your own words. I could be wrong that you rarely do that though because I see only a small fraction of your posts.

Now would you care to comment on the point I was making about the principles the Founders based the Constitution on are timeless and as true and reliable today as they have been at any point in history?

 

[Mindful]

When did they start to forge a national identity?

 

[kaz]

Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

You are the poster child for why we need to end government education. They have utterly failed you.

The common good means everyone benefits. Police, fire, military. Think about it. "Common" good. Welfare is not common good, it is the reverse. It is one person benefiting specifically at the expense of another. Think about it. And try not to hurt yourself when you do it.

 

[kaz]

Ironic, you copy and paste false and out of context quotes of our founders and have the nerve to criticize.

Um...hypocrisy much?

 

[rightwinger]

Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

You are the poster child for why we need to end government education. They have utterly failed you.

The common good means everyone benefits. Police, fire, military. Think about it. "Common" good. Welfare is not common good, it is the reverse. It is one person benefiting specifically at the expense of another. Think about it. And try not to hurt yourself when you do it.

Everybody benefits from welfare. Not having sick and starving people in our streets benefits everyone
There is no requirement that all legislation benefit everyone equally. In practice, it is next to impossible

 

[kaz]

Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

You are the poster child for why we need to end government education. They have utterly failed you.

The common good means everyone benefits. Police, fire, military. Think about it. "Common" good. Welfare is not common good, it is the reverse. It is one person benefiting specifically at the expense of another. Think about it. And try not to hurt yourself when you do it.

Everybody benefits from welfare. Not having sick and starving people in our streets benefits everyone
There is no requirement that all legislation benefit everyone equally. In practice, it is next to impossible

Even if that weren't a butt stupid argument, it's irrelevant. We are talking about what the founding fathers said. The founding fathers who made confiscation and redistribution of wealth unconstitutional in the 10th amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

Even if that weren't a butt stupid argument, it's irrelevant. We are talking about what the founding fathers said. The founding fathers who made confiscation and redistribution of wealth unconstitutional in the 10th amendment.

There is no confiscation and redistribution of wealth. Taxes are constitutionally allowable. All taxes go into the general fund and Congress decides how that fund is used.

Most welfare comes from the state level so any reference to the tenth amendment is irrelevant

 

[dblack]

Even if that weren't a butt stupid argument, it's irrelevant. We are talking about what the founding fathers said. The founding fathers who made confiscation and redistribution of wealth unconstitutional in the 10th amendment.

There is no confiscation and redistribution of wealth. Taxes are constitutionally allowable. All taxes go into the general fund and Congress decides how that fund is used.

Most welfare comes from the state level so any reference to the tenth amendment is irrelevant

There is no spoon.

 

[Bfgrn]

Limiting government to the vision of an 18th century bureaucrat does not make for a great nation

Our founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson in particular said the exact same thing. And Abe Lincoln addressed your last point.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

You idiots won't give up this strawman. No one ever said the Constitution can't change. In fact, it has been legitimately changed many times through history. They are called Constitutional Amendments. Here is the question for you two to attempt to see through your dim fog of stupidity. The question is HOW it is changed.

What the Constitution says: 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate and then it goes to State legislatures where 3/4 need to ratify.

What you say: The legislature can do it any time they want, and the courts even moreso.

How is it possible at this point you still don't even grasp what is being discussed? You have both well earned the title, Simpleton.

A 'framework' doesn't need to be changed.

Jefferson, Adams and Madison address WHAT the role of government IS...

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

Are you trying to make an argument for unlimited government?

Good luck in getting him to make an argument on his own at all. He's very good at finding stuff to cut and paste and put together whether or not he understands what he is arguing though.

But yes, most of those who have never studied the founding documents and who have been schooled in the 'living Constitution', i.e. it can be whatever we want it to be, school of thought, invariably resort to the tired argument that the Founders were old white guys way back then and are irrelevant for us here and now.

It goes back to my previous argument that libertarians (little "L") hold to a conviction, a belief in, a principle of, a concept of liberty that the Founders built into the Constitution. It is a concept that a free people are blessed with God given rights (or natural rights if you don't believe in God) and that great blessings are given to and proceed from a people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have.

It is a concept that government is given its authority by the people, not the other way around. It is a concept that people are not free if their rights are assigned to them via dictator or monarch or pope or other totalitarian authority.

It is a concept that the role of the U.S. government is to enact sufficient laws and regulation to secure our rights and allow the various states to function as one nation and not do physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other. Toward that end the U.S. government provides the common defense and promotes the general welfare meaning everybody's welfare without regard for class or socioeconomic status or political affiliations.

Principles don't change. The principles embraced by the Founders have not changed. All that has changed is an American public that no longer is taught those principles and too many no longer embrace them. We have too many who have been taught to believe that the role of government is to do for the people whatever they don't and will not do for themselves. And it is that which will bring us down.

Ironic, you copy and paste false and out of context quotes of our founders and have the nerve to criticize.

Do you check every quotation you cut and paste of the Founders before you cut and paste them? Can you say with certainty that you have never cut and pasted one that was altered or incorrect? That misrepresented the intent of the Founder by taking it out of context? Over the years I almost certainly have when I didn't take the time to do my homework. Just this week in fact there was one that wasn't exactly out of context but had been sufficiently altered to be suspect. And I feel bad when I do that because I should have been paying closer attention. Especially when I already knew better. It just happened to be in the group and I didn't delete it. I'll take my proper lumps for that.

But I wasn't criticizing you. I was simply commenting that you generally debate via cut and paste with a bit of personal comments about others mixed in, but I don't think I've ever seen you type out your own argument in your own words. I could be wrong that you rarely do that though because I see only a small fraction of your posts.

Now would you care to comment on the point I was making about the principles the Founders based the Constitution on are timeless and as true and reliable today as they have been at any point in history?

I do use a lot of copy and paste from credible sources to back up my beliefs. What I don't understand is why that should be looked upon as anything other than a strong(er) argument. I am citing either actual history, the beliefs of our founders and ancestors, how they actually governed and why they held their beliefs.

I have great deal of faith in the American people. Our progress as a nation has been crafted by our ancestors from the founding of our nation to our parents generation. I believe they have mostly done a good job creating a nation that is fair to all.

I see a lot of liberal bashing from the right in this country. What is a concrete fact is it was liberal tenets that created this nation. The age of enlightenment created men like our founders who moved away from the divine right of kings and the belief that all men are created equal and had the right to self government. The history of our nation has been a forward movement, not a backward one.

The changes made during the Progressive era did not come from one party. It was a very strong grass roots and bipartisan groundswell of American working people that was necessitated by the harsh and dangerous society created by the industrial revolution and the inequality that existed from the robber barons controlling most of the wealth. Before changes were made during that era, there was no protection of workers. Corporations and industry treated workers like dogs. Workplace deaths were commonplace and occurred on a daily basis, and companies did nothing to improve conditions. They just hired a new worker to replace the the dead one. The families of deceased breadwinners received zero death benefits or public assistance to help them survive.

The New Deal created the largest middle class in our history. It was an era that saw many human rights written into law that protects the family and the hard working common man and woman.

I see a lot of bashing of the Roosevelt family. It is a travesty. The Roosevelts were compassionate and fair people who worked tirelessly to make America great for ALL citizens. Teddy and Franklin were great Presidents who had a very positive impact. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was one of America's great humanitarians who worked very hard for the poor and forgotten. But although she was one of the most powerful women in the world, to her grandchildren she was the loving grandma that always had tubs of ice cream in the freezer.

I agree with most of your premise. Where I disagree is that we have moved away from our founders intent. I am sure our founders would approve of most of the improvements We, the People have made to survive in an era TOTALLY different from the one they lived in. The vast majority of American people are no longer farmers tilling their own land. They work for an employer and live in urban and residential areas.

The greatest threat I see to America comes from the right and people like you who want to eliminate the social safety net. Those programs are NOT socialism. They show that America has a humanitarian populace. Programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance are basic human rights. They represent the very best of what good government can do. There is nothing evil or sinister about those programs. They do not create dependency, they create independence and a slice of security for people who can't survive on their own.

President Eisenhower dismissed people who think like you in a letter to his brother...

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

 

[kaz]

I do use a lot of copy and paste from credible sources to back up my beliefs. What I don't understand is why that should be looked upon as anything other than a strong(er) argument.

Because you don't even understand the quotes you are pasting. For example, you are using the term "common good" from the founders to justify wealth redistribution not understanding what common good means. It means everyone benefits. You are using that to justify government plundering some citizens for the benefit of others, which is not what they meant, not at all.

John Adams: Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

Note when John Adams says specifics, such as protection, safety he is referring to things like the military that benefit everyone. And in fact he says government is not for the profit of a man or a class of man, which is clearly what sending someone government checks of other people's money is.

 

[Bfgrn]

I do use a lot of copy and paste from credible sources to back up my beliefs. What I don't understand is why that should be looked upon as anything other than a strong(er) argument.

Because you don't even understand the quotes you are pasting. For example, you are using the term "common good" from the founders to justify wealth redistribution not understanding what common good means. It means everyone benefits. You are using that to justify government plundering some citizens for the benefit of others, which is not what they meant, not at all.

Our founding fathers were very clear that their understanding of 'common good' was diametrically opposed to your cretin like social Darwinism.

NO ONE is being "plundered" by the existence of social programs. These programs are minimal in comparison to every other industrialized nation.

You mindlessly quote Churchill in your sig line. Are you aware that Winston Churchill was the father of the British 'welfare state'? Are you aware that the 'welfare state' is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies? Are you aware that the first 'welfare state program, compulsory health insurance in Bismarck’s Prussia was OPPOSED by Karl Marx's surviving partner Friedrich Engels and voted AGAINST by socialists?

Didn't think so. You are not a thinking man. You are driven by dogma and doctrinaire. Not reason and logic.

 

[kaz]

I do use a lot of copy and paste from credible sources to back up my beliefs. What I don't understand is why that should be looked upon as anything other than a strong(er) argument.

Because you don't even understand the quotes you are pasting. For example, you are using the term "common good" from the founders to justify wealth redistribution not understanding what common good means. It means everyone benefits. You are using that to justify government plundering some citizens for the benefit of others, which is not what they meant, not at all.

Our founding fathers were very clear that their understanding of 'common good' was diametrically opposed to your cretin like social Darwinism.

NO ONE is being "plundered" by the existence of social programs. These programs are minimal in comparison to every other industrialized nation.

You obviously are the receiver of checks, not the one who funds them. You're just rationalizing.

You mindlessly quote Churchill in your sig line. Are you aware that Winston Churchill was the father of the British 'welfare state'? Are you aware that the 'welfare state' is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies? Are you aware that the first 'welfare state program, compulsory health insurance in Bismarck’s Prussia was OPPOSED by Karl Marx's surviving partner Friedrich Engels and voted AGAINST by socialists?

Didn't think so. You are not a thinking man. You are driven by dogma and doctrinaire. Not reason and logic.

So if I quote someone, I own every quote they made and action they took? And YOU call ME not a "thinking man?" LOL, can't make up the shit you actually believe.

 

[Bfgrn]

I do use a lot of copy and paste from credible sources to back up my beliefs. What I don't understand is why that should be looked upon as anything other than a strong(er) argument.

Because you don't even understand the quotes you are pasting. For example, you are using the term "common good" from the founders to justify wealth redistribution not understanding what common good means. It means everyone benefits. You are using that to justify government plundering some citizens for the benefit of others, which is not what they meant, not at all.

Our founding fathers were very clear that their understanding of 'common good' was diametrically opposed to your cretin like social Darwinism.

NO ONE is being "plundered" by the existence of social programs. These programs are minimal in comparison to every other industrialized nation.

You obviously are the receiver of checks, not the one who funds them. You're just rationalizing.

You mindlessly quote Churchill in your sig line. Are you aware that Winston Churchill was the father of the British 'welfare state'? Are you aware that the 'welfare state' is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies? Are you aware that the first 'welfare state program, compulsory health insurance in Bismarck’s Prussia was OPPOSED by Karl Marx's surviving partner Friedrich Engels and voted AGAINST by socialists?

Didn't think so. You are not a thinking man. You are driven by dogma and doctrinaire. Not reason and logic.

So if I quote someone, I own every quote they made and action they took? And YOU call ME not a "thinking man?" LOL, can't make up the shit you actually believe.

Here is a novel idea. THINK. Educate yourself.

Social programs are the construct of advanced capitalist economies. Your cretin like social Darwinism was the strong beliefs of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Not Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.

You and your ilk entirely ignore such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, your proposed falsehood that life is a battlefield, would ultimately lead to the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races regarded as “inferior”, and only the “fittest” should survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”

You are scum...

 

[kaz]

Here is a novel idea. THINK. Educate yourself.

Social programs are the construct of advanced capitalist economies. Your cretin like social Darwinism was the strong beliefs of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Not Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.

Yes, I'm a libertarian who wants despotic government, just one without social programs. Then everyone you list I support is a socialist. And you tell me to "THINK" and "educate" myself? That's classic.

I note you keep coming up with quotes by the founding fathers, yet none of them talk about actual wealth redistribution. And you offer no wealth redistribution proposal. And you don't explain why they advocated wealth redistribution, then prohibited it by not authorizing it then saying anything not authorized is prohibited in the 10th amendment. You just twist the words they used to rationalize it.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, I'm a libertarian who wants despotic government, just one without social programs. Then everyone you list I support is a socialist. And you tell me to "THINK" and "educate" myself? That's classic.

I note you keep coming up with quotes by the founding fathers, yet none of them talk about actual wealth redistribution. And you offer no wealth redistribution proposal. And you don't explain why they advocated wealth redistribution, then prohibited it by not authorizing it then saying anything not authorized is prohibited in the 10th amendment. You just twist the words they used to rationalize it.

The only wealth distribution going on is from poor and middle class Americans to the wealthy

 

[Bfgrn]

Here is a novel idea. THINK. Educate yourself.

Social programs are the construct of advanced capitalist economies. Your cretin like social Darwinism was the strong beliefs of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Not Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.

Yes, I'm a libertarian who wants despotic government, just one without social programs. Then everyone you list I support is a socialist. And you tell me to "THINK" and "educate" myself? That's classic.

I note you keep coming up with quotes by the founding fathers, yet none of them talk about actual wealth redistribution. And you offer no wealth redistribution proposal. And you don't explain why they advocated wealth redistribution, then prohibited it by not authorizing it then saying anything not authorized is prohibited in the 10th amendment. You just twist the words they used to rationalize it.

You can call yourself whatever you chose. But you are an ULTRA-conservative cretin on social issues. You don't stand with our founders of even libertarian heroes like Friedrich von Hayek, You stand with Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Be PROUD you are a cretin.


"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

Then Hayek describe cretins like you...

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

 

[kaz]

Yes, I'm a libertarian who wants despotic government, just one without social programs. Then everyone you list I support is a socialist. And you tell me to "THINK" and "educate" myself? That's classic.

I note you keep coming up with quotes by the founding fathers, yet none of them talk about actual wealth redistribution. And you offer no wealth redistribution proposal. And you don't explain why they advocated wealth redistribution, then prohibited it by not authorizing it then saying anything not authorized is prohibited in the 10th amendment. You just twist the words they used to rationalize it.

The only wealth distribution going on is from poor and middle class Americans to the wealthy

Then how is it that you are living on a government check of other people's money? How is that money going from you to us? Explain.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, I'm a libertarian who wants despotic government, just one without social programs. Then everyone you list I support is a socialist. And you tell me to "THINK" and "educate" myself? That's classic.

I note you keep coming up with quotes by the founding fathers, yet none of them talk about actual wealth redistribution. And you offer no wealth redistribution proposal. And you don't explain why they advocated wealth redistribution, then prohibited it by not authorizing it then saying anything not authorized is prohibited in the 10th amendment. You just twist the words they used to rationalize it.

The only wealth distribution going on is from poor and middle class Americans to the wealthy

Then how is it that you are living on a government check of other people's money? How is that money going from you to us? Explain.

?

 

[kaz]

You can call yourself whatever you chose. But you are an ULTRA-conservative cretin on social issues

Stopped reading here.

I'm pro-choice and think all drugs should be legal as well as prostitution and gambling and all morality laws should be repealed, including gay sodomy laws. You have to explain how I'm "ULTRA-conservative" on social issues. You're just incoherently babbling, Junior. You're over your head, so you're just getting angrier and more delusional.

 

[kaz]

Yes, I'm a libertarian who wants despotic government, just one without social programs. Then everyone you list I support is a socialist. And you tell me to "THINK" and "educate" myself? That's classic.

I note you keep coming up with quotes by the founding fathers, yet none of them talk about actual wealth redistribution. And you offer no wealth redistribution proposal. And you don't explain why they advocated wealth redistribution, then prohibited it by not authorizing it then saying anything not authorized is prohibited in the 10th amendment. You just twist the words they used to rationalize it.

The only wealth distribution going on is from poor and middle class Americans to the wealthy

Then how is it that you are living on a government check of other people's money? How is that money going from you to us? Explain.

?

Seriously? You don't understand the question?

You said wealth only flows from the poor to the wealthy. How is it that when government literally takes my money and gives it to you in the form of an actual check, you are funding me? Government took money out of my bank account and put it in yours. You pay your bills with it. How does that make any sense, even in your delusional mind?