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

[P@triot]

The difference between you and I is that I prefer full employment for the country.

You do? Really? Then why do you keep supporting policies which are forcing jobs overseas (such as the highest corporate tax rate in the world which is making it to expensive to do business here and keep jobs here)?

 

[P@triot]

Straight from the liberal golden-boy's own mouth (back when the Dumbcrats were still liberals and not full-on communists):

 

[P@triot]

Straight from the liberal golden-boy's own mouth (back when the Dumbcrats were still liberals and not full-on communists):

How amazing is it that the Tea Party says the exact same thing today and is labeled by Dumbocrats as "radicals" for it. It really illustrates just how bat-shit crazy the Dumbocrats have become. They have slid so far to the left, even a radical marxist like Barack Obama isn't left enough for them.

 

[bripat9643]

Their opinion is the rule of law.

You are absolutely wrong! Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land. Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

You are welcome to your rant. What you wish was true. Your opinion.

What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.

As usual, when you can't post a substantive response, you post pompous blather signifying nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a lot of blabber signifying nothing. Trade has been around for 10,000 years. Over the centuries it has gotten cheaper and cheaper to ship goods overseas. There was nothing unique about the process that occurred with the invention of computers. The terms "US centric" is Jingoist propaganda, not economics.

The difference between you and I is that I prefer business to grow to full employment for the country.

The difference between you and me is that your understanding of economics is based on political slogans rather than fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Always amazes me how the liberal is always telling others what THEIR fair share ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
Bill and Hillary Clinton "donating" their used and stained underwear to charity and taking a tax deduction on it while asking others to pay more in taxes.
Real easy to be a liberal when you are spending other folks' money.

Always amazes me how the extremist is always telling others what THEIR fair share of government ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.

You must be an "extremist" then because you are always telling us what out "fair share" of paying for your pet causes is. Aren't you retired? doesn't that mean you is on your ass in your house and whittle your tax liability down at low as you can get it?

 

[bripat9643]

Their opinion is the rule of law.

You are absolutely wrong! Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land. Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

You are welcome to your rant. What you wish was true. Your opinion.

What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.

It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.

 

[PMZ]

You are absolutely wrong! Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land. Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

You are welcome to your rant. What you wish was true. Your opinion.

What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.

It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.

The difference is that I support it, and he wants, like you, to destroy it.

 

[bripat9643]

You are welcome to your rant. What you wish was true. Your opinion.

What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.

It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.

The difference is that I support it, and he wants, like you, to destroy it.

You "support it" the same way Adolf Hitler supported the German government in 1933. By the time you're done supporting it, we'll all be cutting wood in a concentration camp in Montana. You support it even when the NSA is monitoring all our phone calls and rifling through our emails. You support it when it forces us all into an healthcare system that no one wants. You support it when the president orders the execution of American citizens without a trial. You support it no matter how oppressive, barbaric or unjust it becomes.

There's nothing noble about supporting your government. Goebbels, Himmler and Goering all supported their government.

 

[PMZ]

BINGO!

The worm keeps blabbering about the rule of law and then admits he believes in the rule of nine men and women on the Supreme Court.

That’s what our Constitution specifies. Our primary rule of law.

Do you not support our Constitution?

No it doesn't. Nowhere does the Constitution specify that the Supreme Court will be the final arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution. Even if it did, it still wouldn't be the "rule of law." It would be rule by the Supreme Court, rule by men, rule by nine political hacks especially chosen for having the correct political opinions.

Constitutional scholars disagree with you Mr Buffoon. However Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.

 

[PMZ]

It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.

The difference is that I support it, and he wants, like you, to destroy it.

You "support it" the same way Adolf Hitler supported the German government in 1933. By the time you're done supporting it, we'll all be cutting wood in a concentration camp in Montana. You support it even when the NSA is monitoring all our phone calls and rifling through our emails. You support it when it forces us all into an healthcare system that no one wants. You support it when the president orders the execution of American citizens without a trial. You support it no matter how oppressive, barbaric or unjust it becomes.

There's nothing noble about supporting your government. Goebbels, Himmler and Goering all supported their government.

Mr. Buffoon, Your hero, Adolph, wanted to change German government from a democracy to a dictatorship because majority rule did not give him the power to which he felt entitled. Exactly, precisely, like you.

The rest is history.

My reaction? There but by the grace of democracy could have gone we.

 

[PMZ]

The buffoon is unable to distinguish between the worst tyranny the world has ever seen, and our democracy. That's a level of ignorance so monumental as to be beyond belief. So, why does he pretend it?

I think that it is consistent with the well known Republican conspiracy and propaganda avalanche designed to drag the country and Democrats down to the level of incompetence demonstrated by Republicans.

Their only possibility of redemption.

 

[PMZ]

But why should we grant them redemption at the polls? They are merely an organization that has destroyed their own value. They are politically bankrupt. They have designed and chosen what led them to become inept at their one and only product, and they are desperate to avoid accountability for their actions.

The only path to their recovery is tough love at the polls. Clear demonstration that they've become unacceptable to America and only a complete makeover will suffice to restore their value.

Tough times breed leaders. They have to be shown explicitly how tough the times really are for them.

 

[bripat9643]

That’s what our Constitution specifies. Our primary rule of law.

Do you not support our Constitution?

No it doesn't. Nowhere does the Constitution specify that the Supreme Court will be the final arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution. Even if it did, it still wouldn't be the "rule of law." It would be rule by the Supreme Court, rule by men, rule by nine political hacks especially chosen for having the correct political opinions.

Constitutional scholars disagree with you Mr Buffoon. However Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.

Sorry, but no Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states explicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means. It doesn't even imply it.

 

[PMZ]

No it doesn't. Nowhere does the Constitution specify that the Supreme Court will be the final arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution. Even if it did, it still wouldn't be the "rule of law." It would be rule by the Supreme Court, rule by men, rule by nine political hacks especially chosen for having the correct political opinions.

Constitutional scholars disagree with you Mr Buffoon. However Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.

Sorry, but no Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states explicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means. It doesn't even imply it.

Sorry, but every Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states implicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.

 

[bripat9643]

But why should we grant them redemption at the polls? They are merely an organization that has destroyed their own value. They are politically bankrupt. They have designed and chosen what led them to become inept at their one and only product, and they are desperate to avoid accountability for their actions.

The only path to their recovery is tough love at the polls. Clear demonstration that they've become unacceptable to America and only a complete makeover will suffice to restore their value.

Tough times breed leaders. They have to be shown explicitly how tough the times really are for them.

Who is "them?"

Yeah, "Tough times breed leaders," like Adolph Hitler. You want to show us how tough times really are? I can't imagine a more obviously fascist statement than that. You're a Stalinist just like Obama who refers to the political opposition as "his enemies."

 

[PMZ]

But why should we grant them redemption at the polls? They are merely an organization that has destroyed their own value. They are politically bankrupt. They have designed and chosen what led them to become inept at their one and only product, and they are desperate to avoid accountability for their actions.

The only path to their recovery is tough love at the polls. Clear demonstration that they've become unacceptable to America and only a complete makeover will suffice to restore their value.

Tough times breed leaders. They have to be shown explicitly how tough the times really are for them.

Who is "them?"

Yeah, "Tough times breed leaders," like Adolph Hitler. You want to show us how tough times really are? I can't imagine a more obviously fascist statement than that. You're a Stalinist just like Obama who refers to the political opposition as "his enemies."

The Republican redemption strategy of dragging down the country to their level, personified. Thank you Mr Buffoon.

 

[bripat9643]

Constitutional scholars disagree with you Mr Buffoon. However Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.

Sorry, but no Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states explicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means. It doesn't even imply it.

Sorry, but every Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states implicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.

Wrong, worm. Although the boot-licking variety you admire say that, many others disagree.

 

[bripat9643]

But why should we grant them redemption at the polls? They are merely an organization that has destroyed their own value. They are politically bankrupt. They have designed and chosen what led them to become inept at their one and only product, and they are desperate to avoid accountability for their actions.

The only path to their recovery is tough love at the polls. Clear demonstration that they've become unacceptable to America and only a complete makeover will suffice to restore their value.

Tough times breed leaders. They have to be shown explicitly how tough the times really are for them.

Who is "them?"

Yeah, "Tough times breed leaders," like Adolph Hitler. You want to show us how tough times really are? I can't imagine a more obviously fascist statement than that. You're a Stalinist just like Obama who refers to the political opposition as "his enemies."

The Republican redemption strategy of dragging down the country to their level, personified. Thank you Mr Buffoon.

"Dragging down the country" to what level, freedom?

Horrors!

 

[PMZ]

Sorry, but no Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states explicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means. It doesn't even imply it.

Sorry, but every Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states implicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.

Wrong, worm. Although the boot-licking variety you admire say that, many others disagree.

I have no problem with people who disagree. The cognitive dissonance created when that happens inspires learners to education.