A message from a Mexican to The USA

[Porter Rockwell]

The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.

Societies don't have rights- they have power and authority, sometimes taken sometimes granted- individuals have rights- simple English eludes you I see.

The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?

So, are you now trying to be a Democrat?

 

[Correll]

Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag

And please post some of these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got

I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on

You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey. I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits. It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Instead of playing politics with you, I'm giving you your BEST arguments. In other words the above is YOUR best case scenario you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :

"Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest. "

This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits. In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture. The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line. I'll explain simple economics to you:

Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500. A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000. Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc. Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:

You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price. The $2500 you save means that, at a minimum* is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer. Banks can loan out FOUR dollars to every ONE they hold in assets. So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc. At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.

* I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor. The reality is, according to my research:

"For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent. "

Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back

Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.

www.cnbc.com

So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, your net worth increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road. All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries. Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive. You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood. They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.

Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.


The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.

Correll, a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially. Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low. You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.

Anyway, my water heater broke down. It was the overflow valve. So, I called a plumber. The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with. The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "proposal" to do the job. He wanted $245. By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay. I told him to get the Hell off my property.

I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs. He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve. All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in. It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes. Your "market rate" is whatever the plumber can charge. And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off. The guy off Craigslist charged $35. It was only worth a freaking service call. The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "proposal."

Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford. Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "market rate," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford. BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day. For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market. IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper. What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.

If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.


If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.


If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,


I will oppose you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Not that the anti-Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters will read this, but none of them have a clue as to where I stand, personally, on this issue.

Presuming that America was a great nation, then there were some uncomfortable truths that the anti - Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters have to come to grips with. Most of their arguments have revolved around this mantra that they don't care whether you're black, white, Muslim, etc. - you can come to America provided you do so "legally." .....

When you make the argument that all people have the right to come here, then you are inviting discussion of legal vs illegal immigration.

That is your framework.


If you want to discuss the issue of legal Third World immigration, which I would be happy to do, then bring up that issue.


And, don't waster our time discussing "bigotry". Sorry, that is a dead horse.

Here is your problem Correll:

IF Liberty is an unalienable Right, you cannot criminalize Liberty

Just because an individual has Liberty does NOT mean they have a Right nor even an obligation to become a citizen

If someone is not a citizen, they cannot affect the politics of your nation.

If you make Liberty a legal versus illegal subject, it's not long before YOUR freedom of movement and YOUR Rights to Liberty are being challenged. The right used to use this "house" analogy until I began pointing out that every guest that showed up at your door did not have to marry your daughter.

A person who moves into my community, and does not become a citizen, might not effect the POLITICS of my nation.

THey will effect EVERYTHING else from wages to culture, to crime, to diseases and bedbugs, ect ect ect.

AND, then when their kids grow up, they will be citizens and they will effect the politics of my nation too.


One can speculate on whether or not the nation that would arise in such a scenario will/would call itself "America", but it would not actually be America, not in any meaningful sense of the word.

So, since the wrong people moving into your neighborhood may cause all of that, you should consider the source of your real problem. Back when America was great, buying and selling homes; hiring workers; doing business in general were all voluntary acts. In general your neighbor would not sell to a third worlder or low class type out of respect for their community. Neighbors were like family. The government did not tell you who could and could not hire. Consequently, people tended to hire relatives and neighbors... barring that they hired from within the community as locally as they could.

Then the government told the local banks they couldn't engage in those practices. They called it redlining. No, says the federal government. We have to open your neighborhood to the third world - to anyone that wants to move in. To the employer, they said, NO you cannot discriminate. You're not allowed to hire the employee of your choice. You have to hire X number of Blacks, Y Number of other races and Z number of sexual deviants, women, heathen, etc. In short, the government took your Right to choose. Your solution is to carry that injustice out even further.

Everybody is guaranteed the Right to Liberty and we have a Right to the pursuit of Happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness, but we have the Right to pursue it.

Let me explain a dynamic to you so that you understand. You are trying to find reasons to oppose having an honest conversation with me. While you're doing that, I'm trying to understand what it is you really believe. I'm even admitting that I don't know what you guys that try to filibuster and then stereotype your opposition really want at the end of the day. It would really help if you had a conversation and not try to presume that I fit into any specific category. I don't fit into any category you have knowledge of or experience with.

 

[Correll]

The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.

Societies don't have rights- they have power and authority, sometimes taken sometimes granted- individuals have rights- simple English eludes you I see.

The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?

So, are you now trying to be a Democrat?

Are you seriously trying to use "laws" as a buzzword to get an emotional response?

Multiple levels of fail there, ole buddy.

 

[Gdjjr]

I tend to be sloppy in my writing, as though we were talking like people.

I write like I talk- Porter has said I'm cryptic- I call it blunt - sloppy in thinking leads to sloppy in writing.

The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?

No they don't. They have an authority granted as a privilege. Either can be rescinded. Rights can only be exercised, by Individuals, or restricted by outside forces. Force being key. Force, except in self defense is immoral.

That is, of course, unless one doesn't believe in unalienable rights, but does believe in inalienable rights, which are merely grants and/or privileges given- unalienable rights can not be given, taken, rescinded, passed on or any form of exchange- they are inherent. I think, based on your posts in this thread, you don't believe in unalienable rights - why not is the first question that comes to mind for me.

Be careful how you answer that -

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Not an ounce of honesty and wrapped up in the flag

And please post some of these non partisan studies I would like links to every one or the ones ya got

I lthought the one from the general accounting office from a few years back was pretty spot on

You aren't paying anyone to be your push button monkey. I know of no GAO study; however the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office did a study wherein they made the conclusion that undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits. It's going to be a waste of time to prove this point to you.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Instead of playing politics with you, I'm giving you your BEST arguments. In other words the above is YOUR best case scenario you can find and I'd like to quote something directly out of that study (the most favorable study done in that era that favors your position) :

"Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest. "

This study is limited to what the foreigners pay in taxes versus what they receive in benefits. In the real world - IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, that only gives part of the picture. The impact to you and I is that wealth is generated in our favor because the foreigner is more productive and produces wealth that adds to your bottom line. I'll explain simple economics to you:

Bubba pulls up to your door and gives you an estimate to do a home repair for $7500. A Mexican guy drives up and says he'll do the job for $5000. Bubba gets an extra $2500 for the job and proceeds to spend his money on junk made in China, Japan, Korea, etc. Now, this gets a bit tricky, but let me simplify it for you:

You saved $2500 on the home repair, leading to your home being worth more for a smaller price. The $2500 you save means that, at a minimum* is adding to your net worth AND the bank that holds your mortgage got much richer. Banks can loan out FOUR dollars to every ONE they hold in assets. So, your $2500 in savings just became $10,000 that the bank can loan out for business expansion, home building, etc. At the end of the day, THAT is why employers hire foreign labor.

* I said at a minimum in order to make the numbers work to your favor. The reality is, according to my research:

"For those who remodel, the average payback in a home’s resale value is 56 percent of the cost of the remodel, but for those who replaced things like garage doors or windows, the payback is a much higher 75 percent. "

Here's how much your home remodel will pay you back

Here is the latest look at how much homeowners can recoup in home value from their renovation projects.

www.cnbc.com

So, I'm working the numbers to YOUR favor and not only did the bank have more money to loan out, your net worth increased substantially so that you have more money to spend later down the road. All you accomplish by overpaying to Bubba was to allow him to buy more garbage made in foreign countries. Maybe it's time you realize that Americans have to become more competitive. You need to figure out why we consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, have more people in prisons than any other country on this planet, are the drug capital of the world and have half our citizenry dependent upon government for at least some portion of their livelihood. They are not going to get the jobs when foreigners are more dependable workers and produce more per hour than their American counterparts.

Bubba is an American. He did the work and got paid the market rate and used it to support his American ass and his American family.


The Mexican went home to Mexico, to the nation he was loyal to anyways.

Correll, a couple of years ago I had major surgery that took a serious bite out of me financially. Not liking to be in debt, I pay all my bills up front, which meant while rehabbing, my immediate cash was really low. You can't just tap into your IRAs, 401k money, etc. like you do your credit card.

Anyway, my water heater broke down. It was the overflow valve. So, I called a plumber. The guy comes out after being told what is wrong and that I already had the part to fix it with. The guy retreats to his van for over half an hour to deliver a "proposal" to do the job. He wanted $245. By calling him, I had agreed to his service charge, which is all an honest man should have had to pay. I told him to get the Hell off my property.

I then got on Craigslist and called someone in my area that would do odd jobs. He came over and in literally ten minutes changed out the over flow valve. All it takes is an adjustable wrench, a little bit of tape that you put on the threads of the valve and then take one out, put the other in. It can be done by a trained monkey in ten minutes. Your "market rate" is whatever the plumber can charge. And government tries to prevent competition by requiring licenses, insurance, etc. for companies as partial justification for trying to rip people off. The guy off Craigslist charged $35. It was only worth a freaking service call. The plumber was charging $1,470 an hour based on his "proposal."

Correll, in a free market economy, we pay what we can afford. Retired and disabled people, along with those in low income neighborhoods simply cannot afford your $1,470 an hour "market rate," so they engage in the free market economy and hire the person that can give them what they need at the price they can afford. BTW, an attorney I used to work with got out of the legal business and bought a plumbing repair company after paying a bill to fix a plumbing problem he had one Thanksgiving day. For many American businesses to not understand the challenges some people have living off less than $1500 a month in Socialist Security or disability, they price themselves out of the market. IF they made themselves competitive, they would not have to worry about the foreigner willing to do the same job - more productively and cheaper. What you propose is pure socialism and consumers would be prevented from having any choices in who they do business with.

If your response to that problem is to argue that we should not licenses plumbers, and you want to pursue that policy, I would not oppose you. I do not have strong feelings or interest in it myself.


If your response is to argue that, as a society, it is morally and/or legally wrong, to regulate the plumbing service ie, requiring licensing, and that governments are being oppressive it they do, I'm going to be suspicious and doubtful.


If your response is that we need to bring in large numbers of immigrant plumbers to flood the market with supply, thus lowering market rates and ruining and bankrupting all American plumbers,


I will oppose you.

Those are not very cogent arguments. I'm not bringing anyone into a neighborhood. The big box guy that thinks he should charge more than a surgeon for a skill set that can be learned in six months is your problem. The government that locks people out of making a living with restrictions that only allow the rich to compete are your problem. The people who want to violate our Fourth Amendment Rights by giving employers access to information on background checks - that is irrelevant to a job and many times the facts not understood by employers is your problem. The fact that a large percentage of Americans were drugged as children and grew up as drug addicts is part of your problem. Mothers mollycoddling their kids and not making them go out and get a damn job is a substantial part of your problem. Lazy ass White kids that are living off the sweat of their parents and grandparents, squandering the wealth families built up over generations (turning us into a third world nation) are a part of your problem. The government with that POLICE STATE - 24 / 7 365 monitoring from the womb to the tomb with that pee test, blood test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, license check, occupation license requirement, mandatory insurance, birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number (I mean "Social Security Number"), social media access agenda just to get a job at Mickey Ds is also part of your problem.

The more control you advocate for and the bigger you make the government, the more your problem grows exponentially. The moral is, if you take a giant shit in your back yard, the flies are bound to show up. And you are wasting your time by complaining about the flies. Fix your culture; the rest will fix itself.

 

[Correll]

I tend to be sloppy in my writing, as though we were talking like people.

I write like I talk- Porter has said I'm cryptic- I call it blunt - sloppy in thinking leads to sloppy in writing.

The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?

No they don't. They have an authority granted as a privilege. Either can be rescinded. Rights can only be exercised, by Individuals, or restricted by outside forces. Force being key. Force, except in self defense is immoral.

That is, of course, unless one doesn't believe in unalienable rights, but does believe in inalienable rights, which are merely grants and/or privileges given- unalienable rights can not be given, taken, rescinded, passed on or any form of exchange- they are inherent. I think, based on your posts in this thread, you don't believe in unalienable rights - why not is the first question that comes to mind for me.

Be careful how you answer that -

I'm a little confused by the question.

Perhaps if you could explain to me, if or how you support any laws?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind

Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.

If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?

You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was. It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders. There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The lack of passing a law, does not mean that the society does not have the right to pass that law.

Societies don't have rights- they have power and authority, sometimes taken sometimes granted- individuals have rights- simple English eludes you I see.

The people that make up the society, have the right to pass laws. Happy?

So, are you now trying to be a Democrat?

Are you seriously trying to use "laws" as a buzzword to get an emotional response?

Multiple levels of fail there, ole buddy.

Multiple levels of success there, buddy. Once you've been challenged to defend your obsession with big government, the more you squirm. Now, everybody can feel your nervousness. You aren't quite sure how to respond. Straw man arguments are not working for you this time. Slowly we're getting to the root of the problem. Let's see if you can answer a couple of questions honestly today:

1) If the government gave foreigners citizenship and they were all legal like, is that something you would agree to?

2) If you were shown that a law was unconstitutional and not within the government's jurisdiction, would you still support it if it benefited you personally?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind

Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.

If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?

You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was. It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders. There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.

Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it. Do you support it?

 

[Gdjjr]

You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was

I'm pretty sure I do- I also know the words stating why- and nowhere have I seen it as being a declaration of co-dependence or making Individuals subservient to a fed gov't-

I also know that if one doesn't believe in unalienable rights and refuses to say what one does believe in then, by default they believe in inalienable rights, so, they can't live unalienable rights- yet, they appear to want to have the benefits of believing in something they don't believe in- that is hypocritical-

 

[Gdjjr]

There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.

LOL- straw man- the right to pursue Happiness has no caveats- demanding anything is presenting a caveat that doesn't exist- thus, straw man- you're assuming, which leads to incorrect analyses and/or presuming which is arrogant - apparently you don't know, therefore can't believe in or live unalienable rights- but, you want inalienable rights to give the benefit of unalienable rights- if not, please tell us what you do believe.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind

Like I've said, several times, and will say til my dying breath- either you believe that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, or you don't. If you do, you can live it. If you don't you can't live it.

If you don't believe in unalienable rights, then what do you believe?

You don't know what the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was. It had nothing to do with forces invading our borders. There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.

Define Liberty as the founders / framers understood it. Do you support it?

The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all. As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right. The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will. At the time, the Crown owned everything. The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise. That was liberty. The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".

 

[Gdjjr]

I'm a little confused by the question.

Perhaps if you could explain to me, if or how you support any laws?

Imagine that. It's a very simple question - do you believe in unalienable rights? If not, why?

I support laws that punish harming another intentionally or taking what doesn't belong to you by threat of force or actual force-

 

[80zephyr]

BUild the wall, deport the fucking illegals, fuck the employers.

Easy for you to say- but not easy to do.
Change, for the sake of change isn't always good depending on the change. That doesn't negate the fact, with several million years for History for evidence, that change is inevitable. You adapt or you don't. Personally, I think it best to adapt. I didn't get to my age by fighting change. However, reaching my age allows a different perspective.
Hollering about doing one thing or another is change that usually doesn't end well.
The ONLY thing you can change is your attitude. The choice is, and always will be, your's to make.

How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?

Mark

 

[Gdjjr]

The argument when the Declaration of Independence was written was whether it should include the word liberty at all. As originally written it was ownership of property that was the unalienable right. The people had the right to own land, businesses, their own labor that they could bargain away at will. At the time, the Crown owned everything. The guarantee was that a person would own the fruits of their enterprise. That was liberty. The founders should have kept the original writing because the word liberty has been bastardized as has "pursuit of happiness".

However, they agreed to what is there, just as they did in the constitution AFTER the Bill of Rights<<<<< was inserted- those rights were not suggestions or guide lines, as they have been bastardized to be- prior to the constitution what were they operating under?

And you still refuse to answer the question- what do you believe in?

 

[Gdjjr]

How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?

Mark

Answer my question- that will maybe change my attitude- I don't subscribe to ANY political Party. I despise group think in religion and politics as both demand compliance to a dogma- I am an INDIVIDUAL libertarian- I think for myself. I draw conclusions based on my beliefs and issue examination of how a whatever will effect Liberty- Period. My fundamental beliefs is that ALL men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights. Unalienable rights are inherent- they cannot be taken or granted-

NOW! What do you believe?????

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There is no unalienable right to come here like there is no unalienable right to move into your home and demand support.

LOL- straw man- the right to pursue Happiness has no caveats- demanding anything is presenting a caveat that doesn't exist- thus, straw man- you're assuming, which leads to incorrect analyses and/or presuming which is arrogant - apparently you don't know, therefore can't believe in or live unalienable rights- but, you want inalienable rights to give the benefit of unalienable rights- if not, please tell us what you do believe.

You remind me of the mental gymnastics criminals go though to justify their crimes. Is there truly liberty if homes have locks on their doors?

Your unalienable rights are in the Bill of Rights and only limit the government.

How much would it take to change your attitude. Lets ask a hypothetical question. Lets say a Democratic president believed in open borders, and he pledged to bring a billion people to the US. Would you agree with that?

Mark

Answer my question- that will maybe change my attitude- I don't subscribe to ANY political Party. I despise group think in religion and politics as both demand compliance to a dogma- I am an INDIVIDUAL libertarian- I think for myself. I draw conclusions based on my beliefs and issue examination of how a whatever will effect Liberty- Period. My fundamental beliefs is that ALL men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights. Unalienable rights are inherent- they cannot be taken or granted-

NOW! What do you believe?????

NO men are created equal. Equality is a function of tyranny. I have been kind in even bothering to answer your question to this degree.

 

[Gdjjr]

NO men are created equal. Equality is a function of tyranny. I have been kind in even bothering to answer your question to this degree.

ALL men are created equal- if you can prove you were put together otherwise, I'll accept your kindness- a function of tyranny is forcing a belief- force being key- which is immoral unless used in self defense-

If your heart can believe it your mind can conceive it - if you don't believe it, which apparently not many do, those many can't live it- which will result in tyranny and/or mob rule which disrespects ALL except the more equal- witness what is happening today- Police State USA- FORCED compliance is tyranny - Period.

 

[Gdjjr]

To equate equal outcome to equal creation is talking points 101 = straw man- giving awards for participation is equal outcome- getting there happened because they were born the same way the more equal were and I bet they bleed red when cut- I bet if they put their pants on two legs at once they'll bust their butt- unless they're sitting down, which does away with equal when the other is standing-

SO, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN? Godvernment tyranny with grants and privileges (inalienable rights) for the more equal, or, that ALL men have the inherent right (unalineable) to participate in Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?