The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[P@triot]

Wow - you are literally getting buried under an avalanche of data here [MENTION=24221]Londoner[/MENTION]. Perhaps you could hit some of your favorite libtard websites and do some "cut & paste" before you are unable to dig out?

Eduardo Saverin Renounces U.S. Citizenship Ahead Of Mega Facebook IPO - Forbes

Socialite, songwriter Denise Rich renounces U.S. citizenship - CNN.com

Record number of American citizens renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying taxes | Mail Online

Two-thirds of British millionaires disappeared after income tax increase on the rich | Wintery Knight

2/3rd's of all British millionaires disappeared after tax increases on the rich?!? Record number of American's renouncing their citizenship under tax & spend Obama?!? Can you say Who Is John Galt?

A few of these posts (filled with facts and links) really made Londoner and FakeyJakey run for the hills, didn't they?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake and the other resident libs cannot comprehend that any "social contract" is voluntary, not mandatory.

Wing nut far right reactionaries label anyone with whom they disagree as "liberal" instead of realizing their position beyond the horizon of the normal.

The social compact was ratified by the Constitution: that argument is over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TASB, shut up and step back. You have offered nothing at all: nothing. You simply say "no" in the face of clear and convincing evidence. The OP has been fail from the beginning, because there is no evidence for it.

You and every one in this country is bound by the social compact recognized clearly in the Preamble.

Whether you agree is immaterial.

You've yet to provide any "evidence" (as usual) [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]. You've had your ass handed to you on a platter in this discussion. And all you keep doing is randomly cutting & pasting excerpts from our founding documents which have nothing to do with any libtard fictional fantasy "social contract". It doesn't exist. Period. That's why you're the only asshat still arguing. The other liberals realize they've been thoroughly defeated on this liberal fantasy and they've gone home.

I'll challenge you one last time - please bold in blue any section of any founding document which promises the people food, housing, healthcare, or a "social contract". You can't do it. This is why I have owned you in this debate.

*Fair Warning- if you even attempt the weak and absurd "general welfare" bullshit, I will tear you apart like a pitbull with a kitty. You've been warned. You better bold in blue something real and tangible (and you can't).

(1) It is you who have provided no evidence, and it is you whose argument has been shredded. Your opinion is not fact, is not evidence, is not relevant to the truth.

(2) The only evidence needed, and which I posted, is the first part of the Preamble. That, son, is not random cutting and pasting.

*Fair Warning: you, Rottweiler, are the laughing stock of the Board.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP states the social contract (compact is my word) does not exist.

An assertion is not fact.

The Preamble to the Constitution (We the People) make it quite clear we are all subject to the compact ratified by We the People through the states.

 

[bripat9643]

God liberals on USMB are so nonsensical. This has NOTHING to do with a "social contract". Where does that say that you have the right to my property, my money, my food, my clothing, my transportation, or any of the tangible, material items that you liberals spend your life lusting over but refuse to pursue honestly?

All men are created equal in their rights - not in their income or material goods.

You are an idiot. "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men". The other idiot said that all government is evil and unnecessary. That Government when established is supported by all responsible men who are not idiots. That doesn't mean they agree with everything a government does, and, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish".

The vast majority of our citizens support our government, only radicals, anarchists and morons do not. The majority may disagree on policy and the direction of government but never support the abolishment of government itself as do radicals, morons and anarchists.

Who has ever advocated "abolishing government" you disingenuous asshat? Only idiot anarchists. Not one conservative on USMB has ever advocated for that. What we have advocated for, however, is the return of Constitutional government. Speaks volumes that greedy, lazy liberals such as yourself fear that so deeply...

I have advocated abolishing government. I am an anarchist.

 

[bripat9643]

The OP states the social contract (compact is my word) does not exist.

An assertion is not fact.

The Preamble to the Constitution (We the People) make it quite clear we are all subject to the compact ratified by We the People through the states.

You claim the social contract does exist. An assertion is not a fact.

The Preamble doesn't mention a thing about any obligations of the citizens of the United States. We are subject to zilch.

 

[bripat9643]

Jake and the other resident libs cannot comprehend that any "social contract" is voluntary, not mandatory.

Wing nut far right reactionaries label anyone with whom they disagree as "liberal" instead of realizing their position beyond the horizon of the normal.

The social compact was ratified by the Constitution: that argument is over.

Fakey, you're a ******* communist. You've proved it time and again. You have admitted to supporting the "social market economy" - socialism, in other words.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[bripat9643]

TASB, shut up and step back. You have offered nothing at all: nothing. You simply say "no" in the face of clear and convincing evidence. The OP has been fail from the beginning, because there is no evidence for it.

You and every one in this country is bound by the social compact recognized clearly in the Preamble.

Whether you agree is immaterial.

You've yet to provide any "evidence" (as usual) [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]. You've had your ass handed to you on a platter in this discussion. And all you keep doing is randomly cutting & pasting excerpts from our founding documents which have nothing to do with any libtard fictional fantasy "social contract". It doesn't exist. Period. That's why you're the only asshat still arguing. The other liberals realize they've been thoroughly defeated on this liberal fantasy and they've gone home.

I'll challenge you one last time - please bold in blue any section of any founding document which promises the people food, housing, healthcare, or a "social contract". You can't do it. This is why I have owned you in this debate.

*Fair Warning- if you even attempt the weak and absurd "general welfare" bullshit, I will tear you apart like a pitbull with a kitty. You've been warned. You better bold in blue something real and tangible (and you can't).

He also has to prove that we agreed to any such "contract."

 

[DiamondDave]

TASB, shut up and step back. You have offered nothing at all: nothing. You simply say "no" in the face of clear and convincing evidence. The OP has been fail from the beginning, because there is no evidence for it.

You and every one in this country is bound by the social compact recognized clearly in the Preamble.

Whether you agree is immaterial.

You've yet to provide any "evidence" (as usual) [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]. You've had your ass handed to you on a platter in this discussion. And all you keep doing is randomly cutting & pasting excerpts from our founding documents which have nothing to do with any libtard fictional fantasy "social contract". It doesn't exist. Period. That's why you're the only asshat still arguing. The other liberals realize they've been thoroughly defeated on this liberal fantasy and they've gone home.

I'll challenge you one last time - please bold in blue any section of any founding document which promises the people food, housing, healthcare, or a "social contract". You can't do it. This is why I have owned you in this debate.

*Fair Warning- if you even attempt the weak and absurd "general welfare" bullshit, I will tear you apart like a pitbull with a kitty. You've been warned. You better bold in blue something real and tangible (and you can't).

(1) It is you who have provided no evidence, and it is you whose argument has been shredded. Your opinion is not fact, is not evidence, is not relevant to the truth.

(2) The only evidence needed, and which I posted, is the first part of the Preamble. That, son, is not random cutting and pasting.

*Fair Warning: you, Rottweiler, are the laughing stock of the Board.

Son.. I broke down the preamble for you.. and even provided a definition of what a preamble is.. and you still think your differing assertion is fact

Go kill yourself and make the world a better place by your subtraction

 

[JakeStarkey]

He also has to prove that we agreed to any such "contract."

The ratification of the Constitution has provided agreement for all Americans until otherwise amended.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have admitted to supporting the "social market economy" - socialism, in other words.

(1) You are an anarchist, so what you say has no meaning in our American world.

(2) You have no idea what is "social market democracy", which is the term I used.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I broke down the preamble for you.. and even provided a definition of what a preamble is...

"you" are not an expert, bub.

When you can amend the Preamble to remove "We the People" and "perfect union", the world will listen to you.

 

[P@triot]

TASB, shut up and step back. You have offered nothing at all: nothing. You simply say "no" in the face of clear and convincing evidence. The OP has been fail from the beginning, because there is no evidence for it.

You and every one in this country is bound by the social compact recognized clearly in the Preamble.

Whether you agree is immaterial.

You've yet to provide any "evidence" (as usual) [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]. You've had your ass handed to you on a platter in this discussion. And all you keep doing is randomly cutting & pasting excerpts from our founding documents which have nothing to do with any libtard fictional fantasy "social contract". It doesn't exist. Period. That's why you're the only asshat still arguing. The other liberals realize they've been thoroughly defeated on this liberal fantasy and they've gone home.

I'll challenge you one last time - please bold in blue any section of any founding document which promises the people food, housing, healthcare, or a "social contract". You can't do it. This is why I have owned you in this debate.

*Fair Warning- if you even attempt the weak and absurd "general welfare" bullshit, I will tear you apart like a pitbull with a kitty. You've been warned. You better bold in blue something real and tangible (and you can't).

(1) It is you who have provided no evidence, and it is you whose argument has been shredded. Your opinion is not fact, is not evidence, is not relevant to the truth.

(2) The only evidence needed, and which I posted, is the first part of the Preamble. That, son, is not random cutting and pasting.

*Fair Warning: you, Rottweiler, are the laughing stock of the Board[/B].

Game. Set. Match.

He couldn't do it, because he knows it's not there. And this is exactly why you take a beating on a daily basis FakeyJakey and have zero respect.

By the way, how unbelievable is it that this buffoon opens by saying "it is you who have provided no evidence". Um, yeah, I stated the obvious - that this liberal fictional fantasy of "social contract" does not exist. How can you provide "evidence" for something that does not exist?

Yes folks, he really is this stupid....

 

[P@triot]

The OP states the social contract (compact is my word) does not exist.

An assertion is not fact.

The Preamble to the Constitution (We the People) make it quite clear we are all subject to the compact ratified by We the People through the states.

The Constitution is a document which outlines how our government will be formed and the rolls and responsibilities of it. It is not a "social contract" you know it. However, you fear that if you acknowledge it, the gravy train might stop for you and you might have to actually provide for yourself for once in your miserable life

I do not, nor have I ever, denied that I am bound by any Constitutional laws (which, for the record, immediately eliminates Obamacare as the federal government does not have the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service - but I digress). But we're not debating if we are bound by Constitutional law and you know it. We are debating the non-existent, fictional fantasy known as "social contract". The fact that you have to change the subject proves that you've been owned in this debate. No go home son. Mommy has dinner ready for you.

 

[P@triot]

He also has to prove that we agreed to any such "contract."

The ratification of the Constitution has provided agreement for all Americans until otherwise amended.

But for the 1,000x you buffoon, the Constitution was the document which outlined how our government would operate. Even a small child knows this. It is not a "social contract" which assures you everything you want and need. So pulling out random sections as "evidence" is simply nonsensical and juvenile. It's literally the equivalent of telling the lottery folks that they owe you the jackpot because you "won" and when they ask to see your ticket, you present them with cd jacket containing the lyrics from your latest New Kids on the Block cd. I mean, sure, that's a tangible piece of paper with real words on it. But it's not the winning lottery ticket and it simply doesn't apply in any capacity.. The lottery folks would just laugh at you. Kind of like all of us on USMB are doing right now lil' Jakey.

 

[P@triot]

This little kid literally picks out THREE words from a document without any context of what follows those THREE words to understand what was being said, and he then applies those THREE words as "proof"...

"We the people" are the first three words in a paragraph which goes on to describe why they are creating the Constitution (they are doing it to "establish justice", "form a more perfect union", "insure domestic tranquility", "provide for the common defense", etc.). At no point is the term "social contract" mentioned or even implied. At no point in the entire Constitution does it mention that needs and/or wants will be provided to the people by the government (since it would be impossible considering the government is the people).

It's remarkable how stupid liberals are. They believe government is some mystical entity (almost like God) that has endless resources to provide to them.

 

[bripat9643]

You have admitted to supporting the "social market economy" - socialism, in other words.

(1) You are an anarchist, so what you say has no meaning in our American world.

Says who? I got news for you, Fakey, everyone gets as much say as anyone else, even a commie like you. Of course, everyone laughs whenever you have your say.

(2) You have no idea what is "social market democracy", which is the term I used.

Socialists use it to refer to the European welfare states. It's mostly a bullshit term. Of course, every term invented by socialists is bullshit. They are intended to obscure the truth, not reveal it.

 

[bripat9643]

This little kid literally picks out THREE words from a document without any context of what follows those THREE words to understand what was being said, and he then applies those THREE words as "proof"...

"We the people" are the first three words in a paragraph which goes on to describe why they are creating the Constitution (they are doing it to "establish justice", "form a more perfect union", "insure domestic tranquility", "provide for the common defense", etc.). At no point is the term "social contract" mentioned or even implied. At no point in the entire Constitution does it mention that needs and/or wants will be provided to the people by the government (since it would be impossible considering the government is the people).

It's remarkable how stupid liberals are. They believe government is some mystical entity (almost like God) that has endless resources to provide to them.

What else can he do? There's isn't a single fact or any logic that supports the "social contract." These are the same idiots who complain that calling their claims "lies" is "semantics."

 

[bripat9643]

I broke down the preamble for you.. and even provided a definition of what a preamble is...

"you" are not an expert, bub.

When you can amend the Preamble to remove "We the People" and "perfect union", the world will listen to you.

Wrong, moron. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together understnads that those words in no way create a social contract. Even if it did, it's not binding on anyone who didn't agree to it explicitly. That means no one.

 

[The T]

This little kid literally picks out THREE words from a document without any context of what follows those THREE words to understand what was being said, and he then applies those THREE words as "proof"...

"We the people" are the first three words in a paragraph which goes on to describe why they are creating the Constitution (they are doing it to "establish justice", "form a more perfect union", "insure domestic tranquility", "provide for the common defense", etc.). At no point is the term "social contract" mentioned or even implied. At no point in the entire Constitution does it mention that needs and/or wants will be provided to the people by the government (since it would be impossible considering the government is the people).

It's remarkable how stupid liberals are. They believe government is some mystical entity (almost like God) that has endless resources to provide to them.

Fakey doesn't know the history of the Founding much less the context...it's a Statist trait to cherrypick to make a point.