Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?

[Wry Catcher]

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society
Oliver Wendell Holmes

Should we call it "civilized" to demand a portion of people's labor by threat of violence? That's typically called "extortion" or "slavery".

Is it "civilized" to have people in a constant arena battle over a dangling sword of power which they scramble around like pigs at a trough, hoping they can use it to slash at their neighbor before their neighbor uses it to slash at them?

I think it far more civilized to acknowledge each person's self-ownership, and to use persuasion via sound arguments to elicit their voluntary support. Wouldn't you agree?

Sure, in a utopia. Do you know where I can find one?

 

[rightwinger]

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society
Oliver Wendell Holmes

Should we call it "civilized" to demand a portion of people's labor by threat of violence? That's typically called "extortion" or "slavery".

Is it "civilized" to have people in a constant arena battle over a dangling sword of power which they scramble around like pigs at a trough, hoping they can use it to slash at their neighbor before their neighbor uses it to slash at them?

I think it far more civilized to acknowledge each person's self-ownership, and to use persuasion via sound arguments to elicit their voluntary support. Wouldn't you agree?

Save me the drama

You will not be beaten if you don’t pay your taxes

 

[BS Filter]

Another day of Rush Limbaugh 101. Let people pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is the road to success and depending on government is both evil and the road to failure. But it's ok to bail out banks, subsidize corporations, let the very wealthy claim the cayman islands as their residence for tax purposes, even allow corporations to declare themselves citizens and say money is speech.

Reduction of taxes is not "subsidizing". Would you prefer the people be housed and fed by government taxes rather that supporting themselves with a job?

 

[BrokeLoser]

The WeakWhite Supremacists on this board who see no need for Affirmative Action are the same ones that argue for Jim Crow.

Ignorance is Bliss to these unsalvageables.

Apparently ignorant fools like you haven’t been to Mexifornia or Loon York lately huh?
Affirmative Action for Whites is needed in those filthy shitholes.

 

[BS Filter]

Government is absolutely the worst form or money handling. It doesn't care about incompetence, waste, fraud, etc. It's not their money. When and if it needs more, it takes it from the producers. The smaller the government, the better.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Cool, then get out of the United States and find yourself a country which will a) take you, b) tolerate your arrogance, and c) tolerate your narcissistic view of the world.

Millions of us served our nation, and in doing so took the oath to support and defend the supreme law of our land. It's not perfect, and is under the threat by someone like you who believes he is the central power.

The genius in our form of government is We the People have never tolerated extremists, and no matter how the ship of state's helmsman goes awry, the people will be sure to change the watch and select a new Captain.

So I am required to leave the place of my birth in order to assert my inherent self-ownership? You believe I should not lay claim to my inherent equality, which dictates that no man is innately superior to myself, and thus his will has no claim over my own in benign personal matters?

Am I really the one who wants to be the "central power"? I am claiming power over my life only, whereas every time someone votes they are supporting a central power over others, and trying to bring it into alignment with their own will. Is it not so?

"We The People" have not tolerated extremists? What do you think Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Henry, et al, would say if they could see how far we've come from the Declaration, or even the less noble Constitution? It was Jefferson who said "banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; & that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." And yet we abide our "representatives" to permit the Federal Reserve to blatantly fleece the nation on a scale unimaginable in 1776. We abide incessant wars abroad which funnel billions upon billions of dollars upward toward war profiteers, while destroying millions of families at home and abroad, as warned against by Major General Smedley Butler:



We abide egregious infringements to the 2nd Amendment as gun laws threaten the people's right and ability to defend themselves against tyranny, and the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" (two endeavors so obviously impossible as to warrant skepticism about their motives) ravage the individual liberties "guaranteed" by the 4th Amendment (so much for guarantees).

Change the Captain all you want; your choices for his replacement are carefully selected for you to ensure that the new one will maintain the course toward your enslavement (which, if you are exceedingly lucky, will remain as the free-range variety rooted in willful ignorance rather than physical dominance). You think people with the wealth and power to influence such decisions will simply sit back and let nature take its course? They did not get where they are by being passive. They can finance campaigns and direct the media to present the options they want you to choose. It's child's play to present options that will serve them well regardless of which way the rabble vote. If the people vote Republican, they make progress toward further control along the right-hand path; if Democrat, along the left-hand path. Over time, the progression along both roads is assured, and all the while the spirit of popular revolt is vented by the illusion of choice.

This is your great Democratic Republic. Swear your allegiance to that, if you will.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No they didn’t pay for his education

My parents did not pay for all my education. They raised four kids and paid around $400 a year in real estate taxes. That didn’t come close to paying for our education

I didn’t pay for my children’s education either. What I paid in taxes didn’t come close to what it cost to educate them

In any case, you seemingly forgot to address the following point, which is far more important:

"...this idea of "paying your fair share" loses the moral high ground when the service is forced upon you and the payment is taken by force."

 

[rightwinger]

Government is absolutely the worst form or money handling. It doesn't care about incompetence, waste, fraud, etc. It's not their money. When and if it needs more, it takes it from the producers. The smaller the government, the better.

We have the most effective government in the world

If you disagree, name one that is superior

 

[rightwinger]

No they didn’t pay for his education

My parents did not pay for all my education. They raised four kids and paid around $400 a year in real estate taxes. That didn’t come close to paying for our education

I didn’t pay for my children’s education either. What I paid in taxes didn’t come close to what it cost to educate them

In any case, you seemingly forgot to address the following point, which is far more important:

"...this idea of "paying your fair share" loses the moral high ground when the service is forced upon you and the payment is taken by force."

More unsubstantiated drama

You get to vote for the person of your choice. If you are not satisfied with what is funded....vote for someone else

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The origin of the power given to congress is from the people. Where do you think the power should be centered and from what source?

If the power of Congress is granted by the people, then this implies the people have this power to grant. Who among us may claim such power? Do you claim the power to personally tax your neighbor? To personally write laws which he must obey? If you don't have this power, and neither do any of "the people", how can they delegate this power to someone else? I presume you would not accept me delegating the right to take your car to my brother, on the grounds that I do not have that right to begin with. It is invalid to delegate a right you don't have in the first place, is it not?

I do not see any valid center from which such power could spring, unless God came down from the heavens and asserted it. Man does not have the ability to invent non-existent rights. He may delegate rights he already has, but he cannot validly create new ones, no matter how many people agree to it.

The people vote for a representative to carry out their will in Congress.

This 100% absolutely does not address the point raised - the delegation of rights to representatives by voters who themselves are not in possession of such rights.

 

[BS Filter]

Government is absolutely the worst form or money handling. It doesn't care about incompetence, waste, fraud, etc. It's not their money. When and if it needs more, it takes it from the producers. The smaller the government, the better.

We have the most effective government in the world

If you disagree, name one that is superior

We have the best form of government in the world. It's effectiveness depends on the people in charge. Liberals believe every cure for any problem is more money and less Liberty. The Constitution was not created to make things "fair". The Constitution puts limits on government, not the people. The left wants to put limits some people while giving more power to select groups in order to gain their support. That's abuse of power.

 

[BS Filter]

The origin of the power given to congress is from the people. Where do you think the power should be centered and from what source?

If the power of Congress is granted by the people, then this implies the people have this power to grant. Who among us may claim such power? Do you claim the power to personally tax your neighbor? To personally write laws which he must obey? If you don't have this power, and neither do any of "the people", how can they delegate this power to someone else? I presume you would not accept me delegating the right to take your car to my brother, on the grounds that I do not have that right to begin with. It is invalid to delegate a right you don't have in the first place, is it not?

I do not see any valid center from which such power could spring, unless God came down from the heavens and asserted it. Man does not have the ability to invent non-existent rights. He may delegate rights he already has, but he cannot validly create new ones, no matter how many people agree to it.

The people vote for a representative to carry out their will in Congress.

This 100% absolutely does not address the point raised - the delegation of rights to representatives by voters who themselves are not in possession of such rights.

The people hold all power. I have my vote. No one takes office without being chosen by the people.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No they didn’t pay for his education

My parents did not pay for all my education. They raised four kids and paid around $400 a year in real estate taxes. That didn’t come close to paying for our education

I didn’t pay for my children’s education either. What I paid in taxes didn’t come close to what it cost to educate them

In any case, you seemingly forgot to address the following point, which is far more important:

"...this idea of "paying your fair share" loses the moral high ground when the service is forced upon you and the payment is taken by force."

More unsubstantiated drama

You get to vote for the person of your choice. If you are not satisfied with what is funded....vote for someone else

Oh, I "get to" vote for the person of my choice, and that justifies everything that happens afterward? Very well then... This coming Saturday, I will arrive at your house with my brother. I will promise to beat you with a club, he will promise to whip you lash you with a whip. You "get to" choose which one you want, so whatever happens after that is fair and just - after all, you chose it.

Except, no you didn't choose it; you were never given a choice not to be beaten at all. You see the point?

 

[rightwinger]

Government is absolutely the worst form or money handling. It doesn't care about incompetence, waste, fraud, etc. It's not their money. When and if it needs more, it takes it from the producers. The smaller the government, the better.

We have the most effective government in the world

If you disagree, name one that is superior

We have the best form of government in the world. It's effectiveness depends on the people in charge. Liberals believe every cure for any problem is more money and less Liberty. The Constitution was not created to make things "fair". The Constitution puts limits on government, not the people. The left wants to put limits some people while giving more power to select groups in order to gain their support. That's abuse of power.

You failed to name a government that is better

USA! USA! USA!

 

[rightwinger]

No they didn’t pay for his education

My parents did not pay for all my education. They raised four kids and paid around $400 a year in real estate taxes. That didn’t come close to paying for our education

I didn’t pay for my children’s education either. What I paid in taxes didn’t come close to what it cost to educate them

In any case, you seemingly forgot to address the following point, which is far more important:

"...this idea of "paying your fair share" loses the moral high ground when the service is forced upon you and the payment is taken by force."

More unsubstantiated drama

You get to vote for the person of your choice. If you are not satisfied with what is funded....vote for someone else

Oh, I "get to" vote for the person of my choice, and that justifies everything that happens afterward? Very well then... This coming Saturday, I will arrive at your house with my brother. I will promise to beat you with a club, he will promise to whip you lash you with a whip. You "get to" choose which one you want, so whatever happens after that is fair and just - after all, you chose it.

Except, no you didn't choose it; you were never given a choice not to be beaten at all. You see the point?

You are goofy

I’m sure you have no clue. Your attempts to derail this thread need to be ignored

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The origin of the power given to congress is from the people. Where do you think the power should be centered and from what source?

If the power of Congress is granted by the people, then this implies the people have this power to grant. Who among us may claim such power? Do you claim the power to personally tax your neighbor? To personally write laws which he must obey? If you don't have this power, and neither do any of "the people", how can they delegate this power to someone else? I presume you would not accept me delegating the right to take your car to my brother, on the grounds that I do not have that right to begin with. It is invalid to delegate a right you don't have in the first place, is it not?

I do not see any valid center from which such power could spring, unless God came down from the heavens and asserted it. Man does not have the ability to invent non-existent rights. He may delegate rights he already has, but he cannot validly create new ones, no matter how many people agree to it.

The people vote for a representative to carry out their will in Congress.

This 100% absolutely does not address the point raised - the delegation of rights to representatives by voters who themselves are not in possession of such rights.

The people hold all power. I have my vote. No one takes office without being chosen by the people.

So you think pulling a lever every 2-4 years means you have ALL the power, while those politicians are merely servants of your will? Strange then, that the master should be subject to the servant's dictates in all matters, public and private, and that the servant should have legions of enforcers who can pretty much do whatever they want to you, the master; your only recourse being to try them in a court funded by the same institution as the enforcer. Strange that you, with all power, after pulling your level, have absolutely NO say in what laws you and your children will be subject to, NO claim over what percentage of your income will be torn from you under threat of violence, NO say in how that money will be allocated, and NO ability to do anything about it until the next time your big lever-pulling ceremony comes back around.

Your idea of holding all power is being "allowed" to choose which dominator holds the whip? Good Lord, the indoctrination runs deep, as without it, who in their right mind would perceive this as power? Consider the deplorable self-loathing nature of this perspective. You are born equal to all other human beings, you have inherent autonomy and self-ownership - stand up and act like it goddam it! This slave talk makes me sick to my stomach.

*Ahem*

Please take this in the spirit it is offered - as an advocacy of you as an individual worthy of respect, liberty, justice, and appreciation.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Oh, I "get to" vote for the person of my choice, and that justifies everything that happens afterward? Very well then... This coming Saturday, I will arrive at your house with my brother. I will promise to beat you with a club, he will promise to whip you lash you with a whip. You "get to" choose which one you want, so whatever happens after that is fair and just - after all, you chose it.

Except, no you didn't choose it; you were never given a choice not to be beaten at all. You see the point?

You are goofy

I’m sure you have no clue. Your attempts to derail this thread need to be ignored

Saying I am goofy and need to be ignored does not address the point being made. You believe that voting answers for all, and I have provided an example that illustrates the lunacy of that premise. If you are so sure of your position, you should have no problem demonstrating how my example fails to make that point.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Harmful and against the constitution. The courts choose to ignore the undeniable fact that AA violates the Equal protection clause because they felt the "good" done by AA was worth violating the constitution.

 

[BS Filter]

Government is absolutely the worst form or money handling. It doesn't care about incompetence, waste, fraud, etc. It's not their money. When and if it needs more, it takes it from the producers. The smaller the government, the better.

We have the most effective government in the world

If you disagree, name one that is superior

We have the best form of government in the world. It's effectiveness depends on the people in charge. Liberals believe every cure for any problem is more money and less Liberty. The Constitution was not created to make things "fair". The Constitution puts limits on government, not the people. The left wants to put limits some people while giving more power to select groups in order to gain their support. That's abuse of power.

You failed to name a government that is better

USA! USA! USA!

Read my post again.

 

[BS Filter]

The origin of the power given to congress is from the people. Where do you think the power should be centered and from what source?

If the power of Congress is granted by the people, then this implies the people have this power to grant. Who among us may claim such power? Do you claim the power to personally tax your neighbor? To personally write laws which he must obey? If you don't have this power, and neither do any of "the people", how can they delegate this power to someone else? I presume you would not accept me delegating the right to take your car to my brother, on the grounds that I do not have that right to begin with. It is invalid to delegate a right you don't have in the first place, is it not?

I do not see any valid center from which such power could spring, unless God came down from the heavens and asserted it. Man does not have the ability to invent non-existent rights. He may delegate rights he already has, but he cannot validly create new ones, no matter how many people agree to it.

The people vote for a representative to carry out their will in Congress.

This 100% absolutely does not address the point raised - the delegation of rights to representatives by voters who themselves are not in possession of such rights.

The people hold all power. I have my vote. No one takes office without being chosen by the people.

So you think pulling a lever every 2-4 years means you have ALL the power, while those politicians are merely servants of your will? Strange then, that the master should be subject to the servant's dictates in all matters, public and private, and that the servant should have legions of enforcers who can pretty much do whatever they want to you, the master; your only recourse being to try them in a court funded by the same institution as the enforcer. Strange that you, with all power, after pulling your level, have absolutely NO say in what laws you and your children will be subject to, NO claim over what percentage of your income will be torn from you under threat of violence, NO say in how that money will be allocated, and NO ability to do anything about it until the next time your big lever-pulling ceremony comes back around.

Your idea of holding all power is being "allowed" to choose which dominator holds the whip? Good Lord, the indoctrination runs deep, as without it, who in their right mind would perceive this as power? Consider the deplorable self-loathing nature of this perspective. You are born equal to all other human beings, you have inherent autonomy and self-ownership - stand up and act like it goddam it! This slave talk makes me sick to my stomach.

*Ahem*

Please take this in the spirit it is offered - as an advocacy of you as an individual worthy of respect, liberty, justice, and appreciation.

I think you're a fruit loop.