Progressives rotate 180°on their views over night

[danielpalos]

Why don't you let the free market decide on North Korea?

Because the U.S. Constitution makes defense the responsibility of the federal government. See how that works? Moron.

as well as the general welfare....

thanks for playing

No it doesn't sweetie - we've been through this before. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it any less of a lie.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

...and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

If only you weren't so astoundingly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, our founders, and American history, uh Jills?

Except, the right wing cannot find a common Offense clause nor a general Warfare clause. There is a common Defense clause and a general welfare clause.

 

[danielpalos]

History has proven that bad things come from capitalism...fact.

Um...actually...that is not a "fact" at all. Quite the contrary, man's standard of living was dreadful for thousands of years. It wasn't until the rise of capitalism that the standard of living for all people around the world skyrocketed.

Stop making stuff up Sea. It's not helpful.

We became a First World economy, after 1929, dears.

 

[danielpalos]

If would mean something, if the right wing ever studied history.

Socialism starts with a Social Contract. Our federal Constitution is an example.

In the real world socialism is a failure, you know what they say about people that try the same thing over and over and expect different results?

Right wing fantasy starts, with a fallacy of false Cause.

Capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been bailing us out, ever since.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

This is the direct result of socialism, it has been a failure to mankind ever since it was thought up… Fact

you know our system was designed to carry debt, right?

this was a discussion when our govt was set up... Jeffersonian slave owners lost.

Certainly not the Debt it has now... far too much to be ever paid back. Socialism is only suits fucked up piece of shit progressives....

You only know, crony forms of capitalism, not truer forms of socialism.

 

[jillian]

In the real world socialism is a failure, you know what they say about people that try the same thing over and over and expect different results?

Right wing fantasy starts, with a fallacy of false Cause.

Capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been bailing us out, ever since.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

This is the direct result of socialism, it has been a failure to mankind ever since it was thought up… Fact

you know our system was designed to carry debt, right?

this was a discussion when our govt was set up... Jeffersonian slave owners lost.

Certainly not the Debt it has now... far too much to be ever paid back. Socialism is only suits fucked up piece of shit progressives....

You only know, crony forms of capitalism, not truer forms of socialism.

I'm not a socialist. and as I said... you need both systems.

 

[jillian]

you know our system was designed to carry debt, right?

You know that was the dumbest made up comment ever posted on USMB, right?

“The maxim of buying nothing but what we [have] money in our pockets to pay for … lays the broadest foundation for happiness.” - Thomas Jefferson (July 28, 1787)

“The laws of nature impose no obligation on [one generation] to pay [another’s] debt. And although, like some other natural rights, this has not yet entered into any declaration of rights, it is no less a law, and ought to be acted on by honest governments." - Thomas Jefferson (June 24, 1817)

“I … place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.” - Thomas Jefferson (July 21, 1816)

only to someone who doesn't know about the way Hamilton set nut our treasury and financial system. Jefferson and Madison lost that battle, little one. and idiots keep trying to resurrect it.

go to school, little boy.

 

[sealybobo]

If would mean something, if the right wing ever studied history.

Socialism starts with a Social Contract. Our federal Constitution is an example.

In the real world socialism is a failure, you know what they say about people that try the same thing over and over and expect different results?

Right wing fantasy starts, with a fallacy of false Cause.

Capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been bailing us out, ever since.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

This is the direct result of socialism, it has been a failure to mankind ever since it was thought up… Fact

Bullshit. The debt is the result of bankers owning us. We don't have money for social services but plenty for the military industrial complex.

And Reagan made us the largest debtor nation when we were the largest creditors before

You stupid ass... lol

I'm right. Started growing faster with Reagan

 

[sealybobo]

For the past 10 years or so we had to hear from progressives how businesses were not private. How they belonged to the government and/or the public. How serving the public meant they had no right to refuse service.

Yet the past few days, progressives had drowned social media celebrating stories of businesses who "serve the public" denying Nazi and/or white supremacist groups service. One was a restaurant. The big news today was ISP and cloud services denying their services to a website called "Daily Stormer" (apparently some white supremacist site).

So what happened? When a business owner wanted to refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs (fully protected by the U.S. Constitution), the left completely lost their shit. They insisted that it was "discrimination" and demanded that either the business be forced - at the barrel of a gun - to provide their products or services, or be run out of business.

And yet, when a business does the exact same thing to another group (for reasons not protected by the U.S. Constitution), all we hear from the fascists is "they have the right to refuse service".

This is what happens when views/ideologies are built from irrational emotion instead of logic and reason. There is an absurd contradiction and lack of consistency - which completely obliterates all credibility (hence the reason nobody takes the left seriously on anything).

Trump said he would end DACA day one. Day 1!!! He didn't. Do you care?

 

[danielpalos]

For the past 10 years or so we had to hear from progressives how businesses were not private. How they belonged to the government and/or the public. How serving the public meant they had no right to refuse service.

Yet the past few days, progressives had drowned social media celebrating stories of businesses who "serve the public" denying Nazi and/or white supremacist groups service. One was a restaurant. The big news today was ISP and cloud services denying their services to a website called "Daily Stormer" (apparently some white supremacist site).

So what happened? When a business owner wanted to refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs (fully protected by the U.S. Constitution), the left completely lost their shit. They insisted that it was "discrimination" and demanded that either the business be forced - at the barrel of a gun - to provide their products or services, or be run out of business.

And yet, when a business does the exact same thing to another group (for reasons not protected by the U.S. Constitution), all we hear from the fascists is "they have the right to refuse service".

This is what happens when views/ideologies are built from irrational emotion instead of logic and reason. There is an absurd contradiction and lack of consistency - which completely obliterates all credibility (hence the reason nobody takes the left seriously on anything).

Trump said he would end DACA day one. Day 1!!! He didn't. Do you care?

Yes, nothing but social plans instead of the fine Capital plans, he should be implementing.

 

[P@triot]

Um...actually...that is not a "fact" at all. Quite the contrary, man's standard of living was dreadful for thousands of years. It wasn't until the rise of capitalism that the standard of living for all people around the world skyrocketed. Stop making stuff up Sea. It's not helpful.

Opinion |

Sweetie...everyone on the board stopped reading right there. You took opinion from an idiot left-wing source and attempted to declare it as "fact".

This isn't debatable. The standard of living in 1624 was no better than 1224. But it absolutely skyrocketed after 1776. Free market changed the world drastically for the better. Now Cuba is waiting for you. The Castro's love uneducated buffoons who hate capitalism.

 

[P@triot]

Why don't you let the free market decide on North Korea?

Because the U.S. Constitution makes defense the responsibility of the federal government. See how that works? Moron.

as well as the general welfare....

thanks for playing

No it doesn't sweetie - we've been through this before. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it any less of a lie.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

...and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

If only you weren't so astoundingly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, our founders, and American history, uh Jills?

There is a...general welfare clause.

If only you understood what a "clause" was - uh junior? Thomas Jefferson just explained it to you. Ask an adult for help.

 

[P@triot]

For the past 10 years or so we had to hear from progressives how businesses were not private. How they belonged to the government and/or the public. How serving the public meant they had no right to refuse service.

Yet the past few days, progressives had drowned social media celebrating stories of businesses who "serve the public" denying Nazi and/or white supremacist groups service. One was a restaurant. The big news today was ISP and cloud services denying their services to a website called "Daily Stormer" (apparently some white supremacist site).

So what happened? When a business owner wanted to refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs (fully protected by the U.S. Constitution), the left completely lost their shit. They insisted that it was "discrimination" and demanded that either the business be forced - at the barrel of a gun - to provide their products or services, or be run out of business.

And yet, when a business does the exact same thing to another group (for reasons not protected by the U.S. Constitution), all we hear from the fascists is "they have the right to refuse service".

This is what happens when views/ideologies are built from irrational emotion instead of logic and reason. There is an absurd contradiction and lack of consistency - which completely obliterates all credibility (hence the reason nobody takes the left seriously on anything).

Trump said he would end DACA day one. Day 1!!! He didn't. Do you care?

What in the world does that have to do with anything?

 

[Seawytch]

Um...actually...that is not a "fact" at all. Quite the contrary, man's standard of living was dreadful for thousands of years. It wasn't until the rise of capitalism that the standard of living for all people around the world skyrocketed. Stop making stuff up Sea. It's not helpful.

Opinion |

Sweetie...everyone on the board stopped reading right there. You took opinion from an idiot left-wing source and attempted to declare it as "fact".

This isn't debatable. The standard of living in 1624 was no better than 1224. But it absolutely skyrocketed after 1776. Free market changed the world drastically for the better. Now Cuba is waiting for you. The Castro's love uneducated buffoons who hate capitalism.

The fact is that "pure" socialism or unregulated capitalism are both bad. One does not work without the other. The challenge is in finding the correct balance of the two.

 

[P@triot]

The fact is that "pure" socialism or unregulated capitalism are both bad. One does not work without the other. The challenge is in finding the correct balance of the two.

Unregulated capitalism functions just fine. Charity can handle every social need and handle it exponentially better than government ever could or ever would.

 

[Freewill]

For the past 10 years or so we had to hear from progressives how businesses were not private. How they belonged to the government and/or the public. How serving the public meant they had no right to refuse service.

Yet the past few days, progressives had drowned social media celebrating stories of businesses who "serve the public" denying Nazi and/or white supremacist groups service. One was a restaurant. The big news today was ISP and cloud services denying their services to a website called "Daily Stormer" (apparently some white supremacist site).

So what happened? When a business owner wanted to refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs (fully protected by the U.S. Constitution), the left completely lost their shit. They insisted that it was "discrimination" and demanded that either the business be forced - at the barrel of a gun - to provide their products or services, or be run out of business.

And yet, when a business does the exact same thing to another group (for reasons not protected by the U.S. Constitution), all we hear from the fascists is "they have the right to refuse service".

This is what happens when views/ideologies are built from irrational emotion instead of logic and reason. There is an absurd contradiction and lack of consistency - which completely obliterates all credibility (hence the reason nobody takes the left seriously on anything).

I once again find myself in the akward position of defending the liberal left.

I do no see where they claim that a public service, like a bakery, can not refuse service, yet say it is perfectly OK for a public service to refuse service to a group the left calls a hate group.

The key is understanding it is who the left calls a hate group which makes it perfectly allowable. The two faced liberal will dictate to you and me whom is worthy and whom is not.

So while you see a two faced 180 degree turn I see business as usual for the judgmental liberal left. Which is interesting since they often quote "judge not" when they are defending the worse of behaviors.

 

[P@triot]

I do no see where they claim that a public service, like a bakery, can not refuse service, yet say it is perfectly OK for a public service to refuse service to a group the left calls a hate group.

Then you haven't turned on your tv, read a newspaper, or looked at the internet in the past 8 years...

 

[Freewill]

I do no see where they claim that a public service, like a bakery, can not refuse service, yet say it is perfectly OK for a public service to refuse service to a group the left calls a hate group.

Then you haven't turned on your tv, read a newspaper, or looked at the internet in the past 8 years...

I just hope sarcasm is not lost on you.

 

[Seawytch]

The fact is that "pure" socialism or unregulated capitalism are both bad. One does not work without the other. The challenge is in finding the correct balance of the two.

Unregulated capitalism functions just fine. Charity can handle every social need and handle it exponentially better than government ever could or ever would.

No it does not. U.S. History is fraught with horrific examples of unregulated capitalism. Very recent history in fact.

And, no, charity is not enough.

No Mitt Romney, Private Charity Is Not Enough

The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity

Private charity no match for federal poverty aid, experts say

 

[danielpalos]

Why don't you let the free market decide on North Korea?

Because the U.S. Constitution makes defense the responsibility of the federal government. See how that works? Moron.

as well as the general welfare....

thanks for playing

No it doesn't sweetie - we've been through this before. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it any less of a lie.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

...and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

If only you weren't so astoundingly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, our founders, and American history, uh Jills?

There is a...general welfare clause.

If only you understood what a "clause" was - uh junior? Thomas Jefferson just explained it to you. Ask an adult for help.

dear, the general welfare is not the common welfare, now do you understand?

 

[P@triot]

Because the U.S. Constitution makes defense the responsibility of the federal government. See how that works? Moron.

as well as the general welfare....

thanks for playing

No it doesn't sweetie - we've been through this before. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it any less of a lie.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

...and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

If only you weren't so astoundingly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, our founders, and American history, uh Jills?

There is a...general welfare clause.

If only you understood what a "clause" was - uh junior? Thomas Jefferson just explained it to you. Ask an adult for help.

dear, the general welfare is not the common welfare, now do you understand?

We'll just refer you back to post #372 here...

 

[jillian]

Why don't you let the free market decide on North Korea?

Because the U.S. Constitution makes defense the responsibility of the federal government. See how that works? Moron.

as well as the general welfare....

thanks for playing

No it doesn't sweetie - we've been through this before. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it any less of a lie.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

...and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

If only you weren't so astoundingly ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, our founders, and American history, uh Jills?

if only you weren't. but as always it's adorable see you try to pretend you're not a moron.

*pats wackjob on head*