What liberals dont understand.....

[Slyhunter]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

And conservatives don’t understand the definition of “socialism “ .

Giving illegals free healthcare.

Let’s pay this out . You don’t rather illegals not have access to healthcare? You’d have people just die at the hospital door?

Might as well offer insurance plans to everyone who can’t get them at work . Who cares about their immigration status .

You would have us pay for the health care for every poverty stricken person on the damn planet.

 

[francoHFW]

Tribalism is tearing this country apart. Liberalism and conservatism are opposing ideas on what policies the government should institute or not institute. Treating each other as the enemy is not going to solve our nations problems. Neither side has all the answers and both sides have good ideas to bring to the table.

The actual problem is Fox noise Rush Limbaugh etc etc have divided the country with an imaginary planet with so many phony scandals and misinformation it's ridiculous. The new garbage propaganda GOP is a catastrophe for the middle class the working class and no doubt soon for the economy and the world again....

Quit your damn whining, you loons have CNN, ESPN, MSN, NBC, CBS, etc. Certainly isn't our fault their ratings are in the toilet.

None of those are propaganda outlets, brainwashed function moron. We also have all the respected newspapers in the world and all the respected media in the world and law enforcement. You have high school grad x cocaine DJs and the New York city con man.. all owned by Rupert Murdoch....

 

[francoHFW]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

And conservatives don’t understand the definition of “socialism “ .

Giving illegals free healthcare.

Let’s pay this out . You don’t rather illegals not have access to healthcare? You’d have people just die at the hospital door?

Might as well offer insurance plans to everyone who can’t get them at work . Who cares about their immigration status .

You would have us pay for the health care for every poverty stricken person on the damn planet.

There you go again. Absolute idiocy.

 

[francoHFW]

They are parasites who bring nothing of value to the table.

you don't believe in natural rights?

The natural right to be a parasite?

don't even understand the concepts, do you.

Money is all he respects in life like many people who are addicted to articles of a shinny nature

Yep, that sure explains the lefts position on healthcare for all, free college, reparations, income equality and all the other BS you folks come up with.

Free public university! and reparations income iequality my ass, brainwashed functional moron.... Major problem is you people don't know any thing that is true.

 

[Moonglow]

They are parasites who bring nothing of value to the table.

you don't believe in natural rights?

The natural right to be a parasite?

don't even understand the concepts, do you.

Money is all he respects in life like many people who are addicted to articles of a shinny nature

Yep, that sure explains the lefts position on healthcare for all, free college, reparations, income equality and all the other BS you folks come up with.

I just love that free wall Mexico is paying for...

 

[Moonglow]

The immigrants coming into the US have lived in socialist nations and that is what they are used to and I guess like yet the only way to afford the butter is to reduce the guns and I don't see that happening while we police the world to continue exerting our power to control markets and countries..I always suggest to them to join the military if they like socialism it's just like it..

Way to afford butter: Get on that big farm girl's good side.

Or get a cow vibrator and make the butter in the cow..

link to cow vibrator?

I don't link to my secret research laboratory.

 

[francoHFW]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

The Liberals are already engaging in violence.

Only on the propaganda machine, brainwashed functional moron. The only spike in violence since Trump is against blacks Jews Muslims and gays...no matter how many times Fox shows that stupid antifa thing in Berkeley.

Antifa.

Nobody cares about the young punks but Fox noise and Rush Limbaugh...

Those young punks are terrorists carrying out your agenda. They are assaulting people and defaming communities. Why don’t you care about that? Yea you call them punks but that’s probably a term of endearment.

You have been fear mongered all to hell about them LOL young college kids and they not going to last and they don't do anything once a year maybe they fight white supremacists and Nazis. And I think they're going to lose so stupid

 

[Marion Morrison]

The Liberals are already engaging in violence.

Only on the propaganda machine, brainwashed functional moron. The only spike in violence since Trump is against blacks Jews Muslims and gays...no matter how many times Fox shows that stupid antifa thing in Berkeley.

Antifa.

Nobody cares about the young punks but Fox noise and Rush Limbaugh...

Those young punks are terrorists carrying out your agenda. They are assaulting people and defaming communities. Why don’t you care about that? Yea you call them punks but that’s probably a term of endearment.

You have been fear mongered all to hell about them LOL young college kids and they not going to last and they don't do anything once a year maybe they fight white supremacists and Nazis. And I think they're going to lose so stupid

 

[emilynghiem]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

Government is socialism in any mixed market economy.

Dear danielpalos:
1. In a Constitutional Republic with representation elected DEMOCRATICALLY by the people
with CHECK AND BALANCES, LIMITS AND SEPARATION ON POWERS,
the PEOPLE/TAXPAYERS have OUR CONSENT represented in policies.

In particular, Govt is BARRED from EITHER "establishing or prohibiting" religious beliefs/free exercise
and by Civil Rights there is NO "discrimination by creed" by Govt OR "Public Institutions."

2. For you to insist that Govt is a mix of Socialism is like
people arguing our Govt is CHRISTIAN BASED.

That is NOT an excuse/justification to IMPOSE either
* Christianity
* Socialism
through govt AGAINST PEOPLE'S WILL OR BELIEFS.

Only where people AGREE on policy can we mix Christian OR Socialist beliefs with Govt.

Examples of where Christian and secular laws AGREE:
* laws against murder
* civil obedience to govt authority, civil laws and process
* marriage incorporated into state laws (currently being contested, challenged legally or reformed due to differences in beliefs)
* references to God, Crosses, Bible and prayers (currently being contested, challenged or changed due to differences in beliefs)

Because there are "Christian influences" in govt laws and history,
DOES THIS MEAN CHRISTIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS THROUGH GOVT?

NO danielpalos
the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED still has to be respected.

Same with imposing SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST, ISLAMIC, CHRISTIAN or any other beliefs
through Govt. If people don't consent that means their RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is being violated by GOVT INFRINGEMENT.

the public sector must be socialism since it cannot be capitalism. it is simple economics.

Dear danielpalos
You can call it socialism while others call it Constitutionalism
as long as we AGREE what functions to "authorize to Govt"

The issues remain
1. DISTINGUISHING local govt/private municipalities
from State/County and
from FEDERAL/NATIONAL GOVT
2. Consent of taxpayers AGREEING on the
terms and conditions of services being paid for

danielpalos CowboyTed HereWeGoAgain

Can we resolve these issues
1. What TERMS do we consent to pay for
2. Which LEVEL of govt (local, state, or national)
3. And AFTER we agree on 1 and 2 then can we
clarify which we are calling "Socialism" or which
we are calling "Constitutional Democratic Republic" govt

Thank you!
I will CC the other people on here who seem to
agree with CowboyTed's post on Socialism.
See if we can all straighten out
1 and 2, in order to resolve conflicts over 3

cc: Timmy and sartre play

 

[Marion Morrison]

emilynghiem danielpalos lives for japanese massage parlors and leftist shilling and wants the girls to do it for free. It doesn't work like that. They deserve to make their money.

 

[danielpalos]

They are parasites who bring nothing of value to the table.

you don't believe in natural rights?

The natural right to be a parasite?

don't even understand the concepts, do you.

Money is all he respects in life like many people who are addicted to articles of a shinny nature

Yep, that sure explains the lefts position on healthcare for all, free college, reparations, income equality and all the other BS you folks come up with.

or, we could solve simple poverty and let markets "float within those goalposts".

 

[emilynghiem]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

Ummmm. It’s not socials if THEY like it.

The VA , Fema payments for the yearly red state floods , coal miner disability, farm subsidies.

Dear Timmy
ACTUALLY the Conservatives and Constitutionalists I know,
both Republican Libertarian and Independents,
DO OPPOSE THE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES AND VA YOU MENTION

YES, they even oppose the Federal Reserve and IRS
as UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNAUTHORIZED overreach BEYOND
the 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution
and ABUSING GOVT AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE.

Timmy WHY DO YOU THINK THE GOP ARE DIVIDED
The Conservatives SINCERE about Constitutional LIMITS ON GOVT
are OUTRAGED at the "Career Politicians" who are AS BAD AS LIBERALS!
(some "Never Trumpers" are REFUSING still anything to do with TRUMP
because he's not Constitutional enough for them.

EXACTLY Timmy

This is DIVIDING the GOP and Constitutionalists as well
because the Conservatives in the current admin still aren't
fully in keeping with Constitutional govt EITHER!

That doesn't mean we EXCUSE it, it means
HELPING THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS TO ENFORCE
LAWS CONSISTENTLY AND STOP THESE ABUSES TOO!!!

 

[Marion Morrison]

you don't believe in natural rights?

The natural right to be a parasite?

don't even understand the concepts, do you.

Money is all he respects in life like many people who are addicted to articles of a shinny nature

Yep, that sure explains the lefts position on healthcare for all, free college, reparations, income equality and all the other BS you folks come up with.

or, we could solve simple poverty and let markets "float within those goalposts".

You should pay those Japanese girls to do what they do for you. You're never going to get that for free, dumbass.
Demanding all women do that for you is a joke.

 

[danielpalos]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

And conservatives don’t understand the definition of “socialism “ .

Giving illegals free healthcare.

Let’s pay this out . You don’t rather illegals not have access to healthcare? You’d have people just die at the hospital door?

Might as well offer insurance plans to everyone who can’t get them at work . Who cares about their immigration status .

You would have us pay for the health care for every poverty stricken person on the damn planet.

promote the general welfare not the general warfare and abolish our useless wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[emilynghiem]

emilynghiem danielpalos lives for japanese massage parlors and leftist shilling and wants the girls to do it for free. It doesn't work like that. They deserve to make their money.

Dear Marion Morrison

If danielpalos and other liberals/progressives
don't want Christian values (like Right to Life mandates)
imposed on the public through Federal Govt
we need to unite and agree not to impose
Socialist values (like Right to heath care mandates)
imposed nationally either.

This isn't either/or Marion Morrison
It's a matter of teaching all people and parties
what it really means to enforce
EQUAL JUSTICE and PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
for ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF CREED.

We need to learn this.
Otherwise, we suffer until political abuses where
parties EXPLOIT voters and govt to play games
imposing one parties' beliefs in fear of the other.

Taxpayers lose this game played at our expense.
We need to unite, demand restitution be REIMBURSED
to Taxpayers for Govt abuses, and re-invest the taxes
we are owed (previously misspent unconstitutionally)
and use those to finance solutions we really want!

 

[danielpalos]

Dear HereWeGoAgain
What liberals don't understand is their socialist beliefs
count as a political religion, and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL
to establish through govt unless taxpayers consent.

What CONSERVATIVES don't understand is we need to
ESTABLISH that socialism is a political religion and
ENFORCE Constitutional laws against that
WITHOUT threatening violence, oppressing or censorship.

It's one thing to try to DENY liberals the right to practice their
own socialism beliefs by voluntary participation and funding.

It's a DIFFERENT approach to use the Constitution to enforce
rules against establishing beliefs through govt and discriminate by creed.

That's what Conservatives don't get and aren't doing either.
Just freaking out and wanting to get rid of liberals,
instead of enforcing laws that would already preclude
socialist beliefs from being established unconstitutionally.

Let us explain things to you. The Military, Roads, Police, Fire Dept,.... are all socialist programs..

The government have virtual monopoly of these services and taxpayers pay for them...

So I think you have to define what you think socialism is?

Government is socialism in any mixed market economy.

Dear danielpalos:
1. In a Constitutional Republic with representation elected DEMOCRATICALLY by the people
with CHECK AND BALANCES, LIMITS AND SEPARATION ON POWERS,
the PEOPLE/TAXPAYERS have OUR CONSENT represented in policies.

In particular, Govt is BARRED from EITHER "establishing or prohibiting" religious beliefs/free exercise
and by Civil Rights there is NO "discrimination by creed" by Govt OR "Public Institutions."

2. For you to insist that Govt is a mix of Socialism is like
people arguing our Govt is CHRISTIAN BASED.

That is NOT an excuse/justification to IMPOSE either
* Christianity
* Socialism
through govt AGAINST PEOPLE'S WILL OR BELIEFS.

Only where people AGREE on policy can we mix Christian OR Socialist beliefs with Govt.

Examples of where Christian and secular laws AGREE:
* laws against murder
* civil obedience to govt authority, civil laws and process
* marriage incorporated into state laws (currently being contested, challenged legally or reformed due to differences in beliefs)
* references to God, Crosses, Bible and prayers (currently being contested, challenged or changed due to differences in beliefs)

Because there are "Christian influences" in govt laws and history,
DOES THIS MEAN CHRISTIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS THROUGH GOVT?

NO danielpalos
the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED still has to be respected.

Same with imposing SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST, ISLAMIC, CHRISTIAN or any other beliefs
through Govt. If people don't consent that means their RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is being violated by GOVT INFRINGEMENT.

the public sector must be socialism since it cannot be capitalism. it is simple economics.

Dear danielpalos
You can call it socialism while others call it Constitutionalism
as long as we AGREE what functions to "authorize to Govt"

The issues remain
1. DISTINGUISHING local govt/private municipalities
from State/County and
from FEDERAL/NATIONAL GOVT
2. Consent of taxpayers AGREEING on the
terms and conditions of services being paid for

danielpalos CowboyTed HereWeGoAgain

Can we resolve these issues
1. What TERMS do we consent to pay for
2. Which LEVEL of govt (local, state, or national)
3. And AFTER we agree on 1 and 2 then can we
clarify which we are calling "Socialism" or which
we are calling "Constitutional Democratic Republic" govt

Thank you!
I will CC the other people on here who seem to
agree with CowboyTed's post on Socialism.
See if we can all straighten out
1 and 2, in order to resolve conflicts over 3

cc: Timmy and sartre play

all command economies have a Constitution.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You'll fight the government? Good luck dumbass. I'll leave flowers at your tombstone.

A bunch of sheep herders have done a fine job the past 15 years now?


.

 

[danielpalos]

emilynghiem danielpalos lives for japanese massage parlors and leftist shilling and wants the girls to do it for free. It doesn't work like that. They deserve to make their money.

i believe in the socialism of equality and equal protection of the law so women can also simply apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed under capitalism.

then, women can do "do it for free".

 

[Wyatt earp]

What are you guys gonna do, just walk into crowded places and start shooting people?

Blow up state capitol buildings and media outlets and IRS offices? Boom!

If you can't beat them with intelligence and ideas and at the ballot box, that's it.

You'd better look to your thought leaders for some better ideas, if they actually have any.
.

Uhm they are allowing illegals to vote in some local school elections now, kind of hard to fight that indoctrination by our youth.


.

 

[emilynghiem]

As a staunch conservative I will not accept liberal/socialist rule.
I will fight it with violence if need be.

And conservatives don’t understand the definition of “socialism “ .

Giving illegals free healthcare.

Let’s pay this out . You don’t rather illegals not have access to healthcare? You’d have people just die at the hospital door?

Might as well offer insurance plans to everyone who can’t get them at work . Who cares about their immigration status .

You would have us pay for the health care for every poverty stricken person on the damn planet.

promote the general welfare not the general warfare and abolish our useless wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Dear danielpalos
IN ADDITION to Promoting General Welfare,
the Govt must also respect CIVIL LIBERTIES of individuals
and not deprive citizens of liberty, property or INCOME without DUE PROCESS OF LAWS.

In cases of CIVIL or CRIMINAL PENALTIES - if a PERSON has violated laws
and owes restitution YES the GOVT/LAWS can require and force payment.

However danielpalos if citizens have NOT committed any crime, abuse or violation, there must be Democratic process to ensure CONSENT of TAXPAYERS
to prevent tyrannical abuse of Govt.

=======================
(SEE AMENDMENTS V and XIV www.ethics-commission.net)

AMENDMENT V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT XIV:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
======================
That's part of Constitutional laws the Govt is ALSO required to follow.
Not just promoting general welfare without any checks or balances.
There has to be
* compelling interest proven (ie which citizens CONSENT to, not Govt imposed)
* LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS

HSLDA | THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DESCRIBING THE COMPELLING INTEREST TEST: THE “LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS” COMPONENT; THE COMPELLING INTEREST MUST BE “ESSENTIAL” AND “NECESSARY

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT DESCRIBING THE COMPELLING INTEREST TEST: THE “LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS” COMPONENT



“Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law.”
City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997 US Lexis 4035, 46

“When the State enacts legislation that intentionally or unintentionally places a burden upon religiously motivated practice, it must justify that burden by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest.’”
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 578, (1993)

“Court recognized the State’s interest in restricting the ballot to parties with demonstrated public support, the Court took the requirement for statewide contests as an indication that the more onerous standard for local contests was not the least restrictive means of advancing that interest.”
Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 292, (1992)

“[T]he Court of Appeals concluded that it was unclear whether Resolution 66-156 directly advanced the State’s asserted interests and whether, if it did, it was the least restrictive means to that end.”
Board of Trustees of the State Univ. of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 473, (1989)

“The Government may, however, regulate the content of constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest.”
Sable Communis. of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126, (1989)

“[H]e contends that the State must establish that the disclosure requirement directly advances the relevant governmental interest and that it constitutes the least restrictive means of doing so.”
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio
471 U.S. 626, 650, (1985)

“The state may justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest.”
Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718, (1981)

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
THE COMPELLING INTEREST MUST BE “ESSENTIAL” AND “NECESSARY”

“The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish a overriding government interest.”
United States v. Lee, 455 US 252, 257, (1982)

“The Court of Appeals found the injunction to be content based and neither necessary to serve a compelling interest nor narrowly drawn to achieve that end.”
Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 US __, __, (1994)

“[W]e think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified . . . if the incidental restriction on the alleged First Amendment freedom is no greater than is essential to that [governmental] interest.”
Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc., 501 US 560, 567, (1991)

“For the state to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.”
Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Ed. Assn., 460 US 37, 45, (1983)

“It [the university] must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.”
Widmar v. Vincent, 454 US 263, 270, (1981)

“[The] appellees were exercising a constitutional right, and any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional.”
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618, 634, (1969)

“[W]e think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified . . . if the incidental restriction on the alleged First Amendment freedom is no greater than is essential to that [governmental] interest.”
United States v. O’Brien, 391 US 367, 377, (1968)