Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods

[Fishlore]

To "own" something is to exercise a right of possession. The critical point in our discussion is that the right of possession is (like all rights) not absolute. You own your car but it can be taken away if you don't make the payments. That ownership is subject to a lien, so is a home mortgage.

The government can take away your property, condemning it as a public health hazard or seizing it by eminent domain if it is needed for some public purpose. The government can seize your property if you don't pay your taxes. The government can take your money in fines or taxes. The reason for this is "sovereignty" the power of the government over the individual. Since government has a monopoly on force, all governments have sovereignty.

The government can also take your liberty, draft you into the army, even take your life. That is true in a dictatorship as well as in a democracy. It is what governments do. There is a cute idea that citizens have "unalienable" rights to things like life and liberty but, obviously, that unalienability has never applied where sovereign government is concerned. Just ask George Washington.

There was, for a brief while in the 18th century, an idea that people had rights before they had government. This was part of a speculative theory about the "state of nature" and origins of human society. The modern sciences of anthropology and archeology have proven conclusively that this notion of "rights" is just a myth. Rights are socially constructed. All primates have societies with social rules and norms. Monkeys have government. It's older than humanity. Get over it.

And if the government chooses to not take your property but instead allows you to keep it, do you consider this to be redistribution?

Your phrasing "if the government chooses" reflects a fundamental misperception. The government is not a person who choses, it is an institution which operates by legal programming created by elected representatives. The government does not have a mind of its own, it is a mechanism not a person.

The mechanism of government runs on money. The government gets its money from various sources, mostly through taxes, and spends its money on the items described in the federal budget. This activity is inherently redistributive. Can you think of something the government does which does not involve taking money from one source and transferring it somewhere else?

The left is nothing more than a force of pure authoritarianism. It generally believes that the government can do whatever it wants with the people. It chooses not to take our stuff...it chooses not to kill us...it chooses not to rape us and sell our daughters into white slavery....blah blah blah. Why even have democracy if it can do whatever it wants to the people without their consent?

There is quite a gap between the consensus will of the people and the policies and laws encacted by the federal government; however, this gap was created in the beginning and has been maintained ever since by the right, not the left.

The first step was the 3/5 rule, designed to secure disproportionate congressional power for the Southern slave-owning class. It was followed by the Electoral College, the rules of the House and Senate, the structure of the two-party system and dozens of other features great and small which create barriers between what the majority of citizens want and what goverment does.

It is the Republican Party which depends on the barriers these days. When 90% of the people want universal background checks for gun purchases and no bill is brought before the House by the Republican Speaker, the situation becomes obvious.

 

[Centinel]

Your phrasing "if the government chooses" reflects a fundamental misperception. The government is not a person who choses, it is an institution which operates by legal programming created by elected representatives. The government does not have a mind of its own, it is a mechanism not a person.

The mechanism of government runs on money. The government gets its money from various sources, mostly through taxes, and spends its money on the items described in the federal budget. This activity is inherently redistributive. Can you think of something the government does which does not involve taking money from one source and transferring it somewhere else?

And let's suppose that the government didn't take any of your money, would that be redistribution?

 

[bripat9643]

To "own" something is to exercise a right of possession. The critical point in our discussion is that the right of possession is (like all rights) not absolute. You own your car but it can be taken away if you don't make the payments. That ownership is subject to a lien, so is a home mortgage.

The government can take away your property, condemning it as a public health hazard or seizing it by eminent domain if it is needed for some public purpose. The government can seize your property if you don't pay your taxes. The government can take your money in fines or taxes. The reason for this is "sovereignty" the power of the government over the individual. Since government has a monopoly on force, all governments have sovereignty.

The government can also take your liberty, draft you into the army, even take your life. That is true in a dictatorship as well as in a democracy. It is what governments do. There is a cute idea that citizens have "unalienable" rights to things like life and liberty but, obviously, that unalienability has never applied where sovereign government is concerned. Just ask George Washington.

There was, for a brief while in the 18th century, an idea that people had rights before they had government. This was part of a speculative theory about the "state of nature" and origins of human society. The modern sciences of anthropology and archeology have proven conclusively that this notion of "rights" is just a myth. Rights are socially constructed. All primates have societies with social rules and norms. Monkeys have government. It's older than humanity. Get over it.

And if the government chooses to not take your property but instead allows you to keep it, do you consider this to be redistribution?

Your phrasing "if the government chooses" reflects a fundamental misperception. The government is not a person who choses, it is an institution which operates by legal programming created by elected representatives. The government does not have a mind of its own, it is a mechanism not a person.

The mechanism of government runs on money. The government gets its money from various sources, mostly through taxes, and spends its money on the items described in the federal budget. This activity is inherently redistributive. Can you think of something the government does which does not involve taking money from one source and transferring it somewhere else?

The left is nothing more than a force of pure authoritarianism. It generally believes that the government can do whatever it wants with the people. It chooses not to take our stuff...it chooses not to kill us...it chooses not to rape us and sell our daughters into white slavery....blah blah blah. Why even have democracy if it can do whatever it wants to the people without their consent?

There is quite a gap between the consensus will of the people and the policies and laws encacted by the federal government; however, this gap was created in the beginning and has been maintained ever since by the right, not the left.

The first step was the 3/5 rule, designed to secure disproportionate congressional power for the Southern slave-owning class. It was followed by the Electoral College, the rules of the House and Senate, the structure of the two-party system and dozens of other features great and small which create barriers between what the majority of citizens want and what goverment does.

It is the Republican Party which depends on the barriers these days. When 90% of the people want universal background checks for gun purchases and no bill is brought before the House by the Republican Speaker, the situation becomes obvious.

The biggest of those barriers is called the Bill of Rights. I know you despise it and would be happy to abolish it.

 

[Centinel]

It is the Republican Party which depends on the barriers these days. When 90% of the people want universal background checks for gun purchases and no bill is brought before the House by the Republican Speaker, the situation becomes obvious.

No bill can be brought because the states never gave congress any legislative power to enact laws restricting the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the states.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No bill can be brought because the states never gave congress any legislative power to enact laws restricting the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the states.

Correct.

And that was true even before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Once the BOR was ratified, then the states and local governments were also forbidden to make and laws infringing people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

 

[Fishlore]

To "own" something is to exercise a right of possession. The critical point in our discussion is that the right of possession is (like all rights) not absolute. You own your car but it can be taken away if you don't make the payments. That ownership is subject to a lien, so is a home mortgage.

The government can take away your property, condemning it as a public health hazard or seizing it by eminent domain if it is needed for some public purpose. The government can seize your property if you don't pay your taxes. The government can take your money in fines or taxes. The reason for this is "sovereignty" the power of the government over the individual. Since government has a monopoly on force, all governments have sovereignty.

The government can also take your liberty, draft you into the army, even take your life. That is true in a dictatorship as well as in a democracy. It is what governments do. There is a cute idea that citizens have "unalienable" rights to things like life and liberty but, obviously, that unalienability has never applied where sovereign government is concerned. Just ask George Washington.

There was, for a brief while in the 18th century, an idea that people had rights before they had government. This was part of a speculative theory about the "state of nature" and origins of human society. The modern sciences of anthropology and archeology have proven conclusively that this notion of "rights" is just a myth. Rights are socially constructed. All primates have societies with social rules and norms. Monkeys have government. It's older than humanity. Get over it.

And if the government chooses to not take your property but instead allows you to keep it, do you consider this to be redistribution?

Your phrasing "if the government chooses" reflects a fundamental misperception. The government is not a person who choses, it is an institution which operates by legal programming created by elected representatives. The government does not have a mind of its own, it is a mechanism not a person.

The mechanism of government runs on money. The government gets its money from various sources, mostly through taxes, and spends its money on the items described in the federal budget. This activity is inherently redistributive. Can you think of something the government does which does not involve taking money from one source and transferring it somewhere else?

The left is nothing more than a force of pure authoritarianism. It generally believes that the government can do whatever it wants with the people. It chooses not to take our stuff...it chooses not to kill us...it chooses not to rape us and sell our daughters into white slavery....blah blah blah. Why even have democracy if it can do whatever it wants to the people without their consent?

There is quite a gap between the consensus will of the people and the policies and laws encacted by the federal government; however, this gap was created in the beginning and has been maintained ever since by the right, not the left.

The first step was the 3/5 rule, designed to secure disproportionate congressional power for the Southern slave-owning class. It was followed by the Electoral College, the rules of the House and Senate, the structure of the two-party system and dozens of other features great and small which create barriers between what the majority of citizens want and what goverment does.

It is the Republican Party which depends on the barriers these days. When 90% of the people want universal background checks for gun purchases and no bill is brought before the House by the Republican Speaker, the situation becomes obvious.

The biggest of those barriers is called the Bill of Rights. I know you despise it and would be happy to abolish it.

What is the point of discussing a post like this?

 

[bripat9643]

And if the government chooses to not take your property but instead allows you to keep it, do you consider this to be redistribution?

Your phrasing "if the government chooses" reflects a fundamental misperception. The government is not a person who choses, it is an institution which operates by legal programming created by elected representatives. The government does not have a mind of its own, it is a mechanism not a person.

The mechanism of government runs on money. The government gets its money from various sources, mostly through taxes, and spends its money on the items described in the federal budget. This activity is inherently redistributive. Can you think of something the government does which does not involve taking money from one source and transferring it somewhere else?

The left is nothing more than a force of pure authoritarianism. It generally believes that the government can do whatever it wants with the people. It chooses not to take our stuff...it chooses not to kill us...it chooses not to rape us and sell our daughters into white slavery....blah blah blah. Why even have democracy if it can do whatever it wants to the people without their consent?

There is quite a gap between the consensus will of the people and the policies and laws encacted by the federal government; however, this gap was created in the beginning and has been maintained ever since by the right, not the left.

The first step was the 3/5 rule, designed to secure disproportionate congressional power for the Southern slave-owning class. It was followed by the Electoral College, the rules of the House and Senate, the structure of the two-party system and dozens of other features great and small which create barriers between what the majority of citizens want and what goverment does.

It is the Republican Party which depends on the barriers these days. When 90% of the people want universal background checks for gun purchases and no bill is brought before the House by the Republican Speaker, the situation becomes obvious.

The biggest of those barriers is called the Bill of Rights. I know you despise it and would be happy to abolish it.

What is the point of discussing a post like this?

I know there's no point for you in discussing it because you would have to admit that all your schemes for "improving" America requiring the government to run roughshod over our Constitutional rights. The Constitution has always been an obstacle to bootlicking statist totalitarians like you.

 

[Fishlore]

Your phrasing "if the government chooses" reflects a fundamental misperception. The government is not a person who choses, it is an institution which operates by legal programming created by elected representatives. The government does not have a mind of its own, it is a mechanism not a person.

The mechanism of government runs on money. The government gets its money from various sources, mostly through taxes, and spends its money on the items described in the federal budget. This activity is inherently redistributive. Can you think of something the government does which does not involve taking money from one source and transferring it somewhere else?

The left is nothing more than a force of pure authoritarianism. It generally believes that the government can do whatever it wants with the people. It chooses not to take our stuff...it chooses not to kill us...it chooses not to rape us and sell our daughters into white slavery....blah blah blah. Why even have democracy if it can do whatever it wants to the people without their consent?

There is quite a gap between the consensus will of the people and the policies and laws encacted by the federal government; however, this gap was created in the beginning and has been maintained ever since by the right, not the left.

The first step was the 3/5 rule, designed to secure disproportionate congressional power for the Southern slave-owning class. It was followed by the Electoral College, the rules of the House and Senate, the structure of the two-party system and dozens of other features great and small which create barriers between what the majority of citizens want and what goverment does.

It is the Republican Party which depends on the barriers these days. When 90% of the people want universal background checks for gun purchases and no bill is brought before the House by the Republican Speaker, the situation becomes obvious.

The biggest of those barriers is called the Bill of Rights. I know you despise it and would be happy to abolish it.

What is the point of discussing a post like this?

I know there's no point for you in discussing it because you would have to admit that all your schemes for "improving" America requiring the government to run roughshod over our Constitutional rights. The Constitution has always been an obstacle to bootlicking statist totalitarians like you.

America's libertarian righties are nuttier than a Port-a-Pottie at a peanut festival. I rest my case.

 

[bripat9643]

The left is nothing more than a force of pure authoritarianism. It generally believes that the government can do whatever it wants with the people. It chooses not to take our stuff...it chooses not to kill us...it chooses not to rape us and sell our daughters into white slavery....blah blah blah. Why even have democracy if it can do whatever it wants to the people without their consent?

There is quite a gap between the consensus will of the people and the policies and laws encacted by the federal government; however, this gap was created in the beginning and has been maintained ever since by the right, not the left.

The first step was the 3/5 rule, designed to secure disproportionate congressional power for the Southern slave-owning class. It was followed by the Electoral College, the rules of the House and Senate, the structure of the two-party system and dozens of other features great and small which create barriers between what the majority of citizens want and what goverment does.

It is the Republican Party which depends on the barriers these days. When 90% of the people want universal background checks for gun purchases and no bill is brought before the House by the Republican Speaker, the situation becomes obvious.

The biggest of those barriers is called the Bill of Rights. I know you despise it and would be happy to abolish it.

What is the point of discussing a post like this?

I know there's no point for you in discussing it because you would have to admit that all your schemes for "improving" America requiring the government to run roughshod over our Constitutional rights. The Constitution has always been an obstacle to bootlicking statist totalitarians like you.

America's libertarian righties are nuttier than a Port-a-Pottie at a peanut festival. I rest my case.

What do you rest your case one? Certainly nothing you have posted.

 

[Fishlore]

There is quite a gap between the consensus will of the people and the policies and laws encacted by the federal government; however, this gap was created in the beginning and has been maintained ever since by the right, not the left.

The first step was the 3/5 rule, designed to secure disproportionate congressional power for the Southern slave-owning class. It was followed by the Electoral College, the rules of the House and Senate, the structure of the two-party system and dozens of other features great and small which create barriers between what the majority of citizens want and what goverment does.

It is the Republican Party which depends on the barriers these days. When 90% of the people want universal background checks for gun purchases and no bill is brought before the House by the Republican Speaker, the situation becomes obvious.

The biggest of those barriers is called the Bill of Rights. I know you despise it and would be happy to abolish it.

What is the point of discussing a post like this?

I know there's no point for you in discussing it because you would have to admit that all your schemes for "improving" America requiring the government to run roughshod over our Constitutional rights. The Constitution has always been an obstacle to bootlicking statist totalitarians like you.

America's libertarian righties are nuttier than a Port-a-Pottie at a peanut festival. I rest my case.

What do you rest your case one? Certainly nothing you have posted.

No wonder that little Finger Boy is so angry. His birth certificate is an apology letter from the condom factory.

 

[bripat9643]

The biggest of those barriers is called the Bill of Rights. I know you despise it and would be happy to abolish it.

What is the point of discussing a post like this?

I know there's no point for you in discussing it because you would have to admit that all your schemes for "improving" America requiring the government to run roughshod over our Constitutional rights. The Constitution has always been an obstacle to bootlicking statist totalitarians like you.

America's libertarian righties are nuttier than a Port-a-Pottie at a peanut festival. I rest my case.

What do you rest your case one? Certainly nothing you have posted.

No wonder that little Finger Boy is so angry. His birth certificate is an apology letter from the condom factory.

True to leftwing douche bag form, when you have no more arguments, you devolve to pure ad hominem.

 

[Dragonlady]

No bill can be brought because the states never gave congress any legislative power to enact laws restricting the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the states.

Correct.

And that was true even before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Once the BOR was ratified, then the states and local governments were also forbidden to make and laws infringing people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

Not true. The right to bear arms can be amended, or modified.

 

[Preacher]

Sounds like the liberals are trying Diversion #2, telling fibs like "Taxation is theft", in an attempt to dodge discussing the fact that government wealth redistribution is the REAL theft.

If a farmer has a bushel of apples that he grew, and I offer him $20 (or whatever the going rate is) for them, and he says OK, then I hand him my money and he hands me the apples, and we both go away happy. No theft involved, both of us agreed beforehand to turn over what we had, in exchange for what the other guy had.

If I say to a group of people, "Hey, someone robbed my house last night and attacked and injured my family. I'll pay you $xxx amount if you'll go out, find the guy who did it, throw him in jail, accumulate evidence that proves he did it, get a jury together, get him a lawyer, and put him on trial." They agree to do all that, I hand them the money, they go out, find out who it was, grab him and put him in jail, get the evidence, get the jury and a lawyer, and hold the trial. Again, there is no theft involved here between me and the group. We both agreed beforehand what we would do, both sides stuck to the deal, both are happy with the exchange.

These two examples are identical, business-wise. But in the second example, the group might be called "government". And the agreement we had, might be called the "Constitution". And the money I paid, might be called "taxes". In fact, even if nobody robbed my house or attacked my family, I still agreed to pay that money, to have those people ready to do what they did when needed.

If I didn't like the procedures in that agreement, then when I reach the age of majority, I have the option of petitioning to change it; or if I REALLY don't like it, I have the option of leaving the country where it's in force.

But in no case is any theft involved in these "taxes". Because the collection of them, and the use they were put to, is spelled out in advance in the document I agreed to ("Constitution").

Suppose that farmer, after we worked our agreement and exchanged our things, then went behind my back and grabbed my wallet and took enough money for ten bushels of apples; but still only gave me the one bushel. And then he handed the rest of the money to another guy because that other guy was poor, only owning 1/4 bushel of apples himself. That IS theft, since it was no part of our agreement. And the guy he gave the extra money to, did nothing to earn it. It is theft... or as liberals call it, "redistribution of wealth".

And suppose that group I asked to find and try the robber, grabbed a bunch of extra money from me and gave it to some other guy who was poor. That, again, is theft, since nowhere in the rules I agreed to ("Constitution") is there any mention of those people being authorized to spend money they got from me, on giving it to a guy who did not earn it. The fact that liberals call this "redistribution of wealth", does not change the fact that it is theft, just like the farmer ripping me off.

Comment?

Paying wages that a person can't take care if a family on is wage theft and theft of labor either pay workers correctly or accept the fact the government will do it for you

 

[ScienceRocks]

95% of the redistribution goes from the poor and middle class straight to the super rich. They're the ones taking all the wealth in our society. Of course, you loserterian fags blame infrastructure and the tiny bit we use to help the poor instead. Fuck you.

 

[bripat9643]

No bill can be brought because the states never gave congress any legislative power to enact laws restricting the acquisition or possession of arms by the people of the states.

Correct.

And that was true even before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Once the BOR was ratified, then the states and local governments were also forbidden to make and laws infringing people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons.

Not true. The right to bear arms can be amended, or modified.

Yes, there is an amendment process specified in the Constitution. That's the only legitimate way to change it.

 

[bripat9643]

95% of the redistribution goes from the poor and middle class straight to the super rich. They're the ones taking all the wealth in our society. Of course, you loserterian fags blame infrastructure and the tiny bit we use to help the poor instead. Fuck you.

How is this "redistribution" accomplished?

 

[bripat9643]

Sounds like the liberals are trying Diversion #2, telling fibs like "Taxation is theft", in an attempt to dodge discussing the fact that government wealth redistribution is the REAL theft.

If a farmer has a bushel of apples that he grew, and I offer him $20 (or whatever the going rate is) for them, and he says OK, then I hand him my money and he hands me the apples, and we both go away happy. No theft involved, both of us agreed beforehand to turn over what we had, in exchange for what the other guy had.

If I say to a group of people, "Hey, someone robbed my house last night and attacked and injured my family. I'll pay you $xxx amount if you'll go out, find the guy who did it, throw him in jail, accumulate evidence that proves he did it, get a jury together, get him a lawyer, and put him on trial." They agree to do all that, I hand them the money, they go out, find out who it was, grab him and put him in jail, get the evidence, get the jury and a lawyer, and hold the trial. Again, there is no theft involved here between me and the group. We both agreed beforehand what we would do, both sides stuck to the deal, both are happy with the exchange.

These two examples are identical, business-wise. But in the second example, the group might be called "government". And the agreement we had, might be called the "Constitution". And the money I paid, might be called "taxes". In fact, even if nobody robbed my house or attacked my family, I still agreed to pay that money, to have those people ready to do what they did when needed.

If I didn't like the procedures in that agreement, then when I reach the age of majority, I have the option of petitioning to change it; or if I REALLY don't like it, I have the option of leaving the country where it's in force.

But in no case is any theft involved in these "taxes". Because the collection of them, and the use they were put to, is spelled out in advance in the document I agreed to ("Constitution").

Suppose that farmer, after we worked our agreement and exchanged our things, then went behind my back and grabbed my wallet and took enough money for ten bushels of apples; but still only gave me the one bushel. And then he handed the rest of the money to another guy because that other guy was poor, only owning 1/4 bushel of apples himself. That IS theft, since it was no part of our agreement. And the guy he gave the extra money to, did nothing to earn it. It is theft... or as liberals call it, "redistribution of wealth".

And suppose that group I asked to find and try the robber, grabbed a bunch of extra money from me and gave it to some other guy who was poor. That, again, is theft, since nowhere in the rules I agreed to ("Constitution") is there any mention of those people being authorized to spend money they got from me, on giving it to a guy who did not earn it. The fact that liberals call this "redistribution of wealth", does not change the fact that it is theft, just like the farmer ripping me off.

Comment?

Paying wages that a person can't take care if a family on is wage theft and theft of labor either pay workers correctly or accept the fact the government will do it for you

How is it "theft" of any kind? Does the employer point a gun at the employee and force him to take the job?

 

[Preacher]

Sounds like the liberals are trying Diversion #2, telling fibs like "Taxation is theft", in an attempt to dodge discussing the fact that government wealth redistribution is the REAL theft.

If a farmer has a bushel of apples that he grew, and I offer him $20 (or whatever the going rate is) for them, and he says OK, then I hand him my money and he hands me the apples, and we both go away happy. No theft involved, both of us agreed beforehand to turn over what we had, in exchange for what the other guy had.

If I say to a group of people, "Hey, someone robbed my house last night and attacked and injured my family. I'll pay you $xxx amount if you'll go out, find the guy who did it, throw him in jail, accumulate evidence that proves he did it, get a jury together, get him a lawyer, and put him on trial." They agree to do all that, I hand them the money, they go out, find out who it was, grab him and put him in jail, get the evidence, get the jury and a lawyer, and hold the trial. Again, there is no theft involved here between me and the group. We both agreed beforehand what we would do, both sides stuck to the deal, both are happy with the exchange.

These two examples are identical, business-wise. But in the second example, the group might be called "government". And the agreement we had, might be called the "Constitution". And the money I paid, might be called "taxes". In fact, even if nobody robbed my house or attacked my family, I still agreed to pay that money, to have those people ready to do what they did when needed.

If I didn't like the procedures in that agreement, then when I reach the age of majority, I have the option of petitioning to change it; or if I REALLY don't like it, I have the option of leaving the country where it's in force.

But in no case is any theft involved in these "taxes". Because the collection of them, and the use they were put to, is spelled out in advance in the document I agreed to ("Constitution").

Suppose that farmer, after we worked our agreement and exchanged our things, then went behind my back and grabbed my wallet and took enough money for ten bushels of apples; but still only gave me the one bushel. And then he handed the rest of the money to another guy because that other guy was poor, only owning 1/4 bushel of apples himself. That IS theft, since it was no part of our agreement. And the guy he gave the extra money to, did nothing to earn it. It is theft... or as liberals call it, "redistribution of wealth".

And suppose that group I asked to find and try the robber, grabbed a bunch of extra money from me and gave it to some other guy who was poor. That, again, is theft, since nowhere in the rules I agreed to ("Constitution") is there any mention of those people being authorized to spend money they got from me, on giving it to a guy who did not earn it. The fact that liberals call this "redistribution of wealth", does not change the fact that it is theft, just like the farmer ripping me off.

Comment?

Paying wages that a person can't take care if a family on is wage theft and theft of labor either pay workers correctly or accept the fact the government will do it for you

How is it "theft" of any kind? Does the employer point a gun at the employee and force him to take the job?

That asinine argument doesn't fly since everyone must work to make money therefore any job where a person is supporting a family should made a wage that's enough to do so. Start the wage at the lowest for a single person and it goes up from there get married it increases have kids it increases

 

[bripat9643]

You still haven't explained how paying someone a wage they agree to is theft. The fact that you would like life to be a certain way proves nothing. Theft has a specific definition, and so far you haven't described anything that fits that definition.

 

[Fishlore]

What is the point of discussing a post like this?

I know there's no point for you in discussing it because you would have to admit that all your schemes for "improving" America requiring the government to run roughshod over our Constitutional rights. The Constitution has always been an obstacle to bootlicking statist totalitarians like you.

America's libertarian righties are nuttier than a Port-a-Pottie at a peanut festival. I rest my case.

What do you rest your case one? Certainly nothing you have posted.

No wonder that little Finger Boy is so angry. His birth certificate is an apology letter from the condom factory.

True to leftwing douche bag form, when you have no more arguments, you devolve to pure ad hominem.

If you knew better you would be accusing me of ad liberem argument, but then if you knew better you wouldn't pontificate those absurd bromides about the Constitution and your God-given right to carry a machine gun. I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.