[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[bripat9643]

You still haven't defined "the rule of law." I thought it was so easy for you.



Gasoline is great for running your car. However, it's not so good for drinking. Just because a majority vote may be the only means we have of making some decisions, it doesn't follow that we should put everything to a majority vote, but that is currently the premise our government operates under. Goose steppers like Nazi Pelosi have stated in public that there is no sphere of society that isn't subject to legislation by Congress.

That isn't "the rule of law." It's tyranny.

Which word in "rule by law" is confusing you?

To pass legislation a proposal has to be accepted by a majority of the House and another majority in the Senate, then signed by the President, all of whom are elected by a majority of citizens.

What if that whole process goes haywire?

Could happen, I suppose.

What would reduce the odds?

Certainly not rule by minority. Certainly not rule without law. Certainly not a benevolent dictatorship or monarch.

What?

So majority rule is the rule of law? How about a lynch mob? Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?" slavery? How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?

You still haven't defined "the rule of law." All you've done is discuss the mechanics of mob rule. I suppose we are supposed to assume that is the equivalent.

 

[PMZ]

We only have one control over the quality of legislation. Hiring and firing politicians.

That’s the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.

Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

He is referring to the Welfare State Constitution of 1935 which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.

.

.

Another big fan of anarchy.

 

[Contumacious]

We don't need your help. Your help typically costs us a fortune. Your help is unaffordable. Take your help and leave.

In other words, do what we tell you to do or leave. That's what your definition of "help" is. Again, you sound just like a Nazi.



No, it also takes a lot brains, foresight, ingenuity and perseverance. However, anyone who works hard in this country will not be poor, even a dumbshit like you.



Actually, almost all of them would quickly become wealthy again if they ever lost their fortunes.

What's happened to them is best exemplified by Versailles.

Just so you know, ignorance begets ignorance.

You're comparing royalty with people who earned their fortunes. That's a classic Marxist propaganda technique.

Deportation of people hostile to a country is pretty standard fare.

I agree.

But they should make an exception in your case an use you for target practice.

.

 

[PMZ]

You still haven't defined "the rule of law." I thought it was so easy for you.



Gasoline is great for running your car. However, it's not so good for drinking. Just because a majority vote may be the only means we have of making some decisions, it doesn't follow that we should put everything to a majority vote, but that is currently the premise our government operates under. Goose steppers like Nazi Pelosi have stated in public that there is no sphere of society that isn't subject to legislation by Congress.

That isn't "the rule of law." It's tyranny.

Which word in "rule by law" is confusing you?

To pass legislation a proposal has to be accepted by a majority of the House and another majority in the Senate, then signed by the President, all of whom are elected by a majority of citizens.

What if that whole process goes haywire?

Could happen, I suppose.

What would reduce the odds?

Certainly not rule by minority. Certainly not rule without law. Certainly not a benevolent dictatorship or monarch.

What?

So majority rule is the rule of law? How about a lynch mob? Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?" slavery? How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?

"Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate. If the duly constituted government is a democracy, freedom is maximized.

Your examples are of anarchy or crime.

I, frankly, don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy), or due process (death penalty under rule of law).

 

[PMZ]

In other words, do what we tell you to do or leave. That's what your definition of "help" is. Again, you sound just like a Nazi.



No, it also takes a lot brains, foresight, ingenuity and perseverance. However, anyone who works hard in this country will not be poor, even a dumbshit like you.



Actually, almost all of them would quickly become wealthy again if they ever lost their fortunes.



You're comparing royalty with people who earned their fortunes. That's a classic Marxist propaganda technique.

Deportation of people hostile to a country is pretty standard fare.

I agree.

But they should make an exception in your case an use you for target practice.

.

How clever are you.

 

[bripat9643]

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

He is referring to the Welfare State Constitution of 1935 which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.

.

.

Another big fan of anarchy.

So, opposing the welfare state makes you an anarchist?

Do you see why we're all laughing at you?

You're totalitarian tendencies are plain for all to see.

 

[bripat9643]

Which word in "rule by law" is confusing you?

To pass legislation a proposal has to be accepted by a majority of the House and another majority in the Senate, then signed by the President, all of whom are elected by a majority of citizens.

What if that whole process goes haywire?

Could happen, I suppose.

What would reduce the odds?

Certainly not rule by minority. Certainly not rule without law. Certainly not a benevolent dictatorship or monarch.

What?

So majority rule is the rule of law? How about a lynch mob? Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?" slavery? How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?

"Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate. If the duly constituted government is a democracy, freedom is maximized.

What makes a government "duly constituted?" Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy. You don't even know what freedom is.

Your examples are of anarchy or crime.

Nope. Jim Crow was quite legal. The majority approved it. The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.

I, frankly, don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy), or due process (death penalty under rule of law).

He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.

 

[RKMBrown]

Before my time.

I assume by SS you mean Social Security, another huge Democrat solution that has made a real difference to the real people of America.

But, it's not Obama's. It's ours. We, the people, whose remaining wealth, 15% of the total, some in our SS savings, you are so jealous of.

Are you going after that next as Big Brother Bush wanted to do?

You said you are 74. That means you were born around the start of the war. That means you were old enough to remember. Well I remember when I was 3 so I would have thought you'd remember when you were 4-6years old.

I never said that I was 74.

Yes you did.

 

[Contumacious]

You failed do define what "the rule of law means." Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary. Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.

He is referring to the Welfare State Constitution of 1935 which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.

.

.

Another big fan of anarchy.

So Says a big fan of tyranny and enslavement.

 

[PMZ]

So majority rule is the rule of law? How about a lynch mob? Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?" slavery? How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?

"Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate. If the duly constituted government is a democracy, freedom is maximized.

What makes a government "duly constituted?" Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy. You don't even know what freedom is.

Your examples are of anarchy or crime.

Nope. Jim Crow was quite legal. The majority approved it. The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.

I, frankly, don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy), or due process (death penalty under rule of law).

He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.

" Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy. "

I know that your definition of freedom is unrestricted ability to impose what's best for you on me.

In two words, **** you.

That’s the power of democracy.

You've been silent about what other form of government offers more freedom than democracy.

When can we expect that silence to be broken?

 

[PMZ]

He is referring to the Welfare State Constitution of 1935 which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.

.

.

Another big fan of anarchy.

So Says a big fan of tyranny and enslavement.

More cleverness.

Who am I enslaving? If it's you, it's due to your choice to live here. But apparently you don't have the balls to be free and you're looking for the scapegoat that Fox offered you.

Keep looking. I think that he's in the Fox monster closet.

 

[PMZ]

You said you are 74. That means you were born around the start of the war. That means you were old enough to remember. Well I remember when I was 3 so I would have thought you'd remember when you were 4-6years old.

I never said that I was 74.

Yes you did.

Why would I lie about my age?

 

[PMZ]

So majority rule is the rule of law? How about a lynch mob? Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?" slavery? How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?

"Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate. If the duly constituted government is a democracy, freedom is maximized.

What makes a government "duly constituted?" Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy. You don't even know what freedom is.

Your examples are of anarchy or crime.

Nope. Jim Crow was quite legal. The majority approved it. The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.

I, frankly, don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy), or due process (death penalty under rule of law).

He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.

So it was the death penalty under rule of law enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.

 

[PMZ]

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian hegemony to its decline with the defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens sought to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public may have been entertaining doubts about democracy as an efficient form of government. Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy, and some scholars[who?] interpret his trial as an expression of political infighting.

Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[15] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness.[16] His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the cause of his execution.

According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.[17] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[18] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.[19][20][21][22]

 

[RKMBrown]

I never said that I was 74.

Yes you did.

Why would I lie about my age?

Probably because you are a dirt bag lying POS troll. We were talking about "jobs" you said you did industrial process improvement and are collecting SS and you were bragging about not working any more.

 

[Contumacious]

Another big fan of anarchy.

So Says a big fan of tyranny and enslavement.

More cleverness.

Who am I enslaving? If it's you, it's due to your choice to live here. But apparently you don't have the balls to be free and you're looking for the scapegoat that Fox offered you.

Keep looking. I think that he's in the Fox monster closet.

Violence begets violence.

.

 

[bripat9643]

"Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate. If the duly constituted government is a democracy, freedom is maximized.

What makes a government "duly constituted?" Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy. You don't even know what freedom is.



Nope. Jim Crow was quite legal. The majority approved it. The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.

I, frankly, don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy), or due process (death penalty under rule of law).

He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.

So it was the death penalty under rule of law enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.

His only real "crime" was irritating powerful members of the community. Apparently you also agree that Jim Crow is the rule of law "enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government." A lynch mob is just as legitimate as the execution of Socrates.

 

[PMZ]

Yes you did.

Why would I lie about my age?

Probably because you are a dirt bag lying POS troll. We were talking about "jobs" you said you did industrial process improvement and are collecting SS and you were bragging about not working any more.

There are lots of people who are described by your post who are not 74.

Which makes you the dirt bag lying POS troll.

Anybody surprised?

 

[PMZ]

What makes a government "duly constituted?" Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy. You don't even know what freedom is.



Nope. Jim Crow was quite legal. The majority approved it. The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.



He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.

So it was the death penalty under rule of law enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.

His only real "crime" was irritating powerful members of the community. Apparently you also agree that Jim Crow is the rule of law "enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government. A lynch mob is just as legitimate as the execution of Socrates.

How far can you run from your indefensible positions? You've gone from wrong to desperately wrong. What's next?

 

[PMZ]

So Says a big fan of tyranny and enslavement.

More cleverness.

Who am I enslaving? If it's you, it's due to your choice to live here. But apparently you don't have the balls to be free and you're looking for the scapegoat that Fox offered you.

Keep looking. I think that he's in the Fox monster closet.

Violence begets violence.

.

Ignorance begets ignorance.